iPP['!|tlilii!!l 

li!  Iliii!' 


iiiii! 

:  iill 


MMl 


:u 


m. 

■Ul'r. 

'Mi 

m 
m 


I 

!' ; 
I 

t 

LIBRARY 


« 


^^//i 


\ 


> 


^kitmp  luitl  !(]c  Sniirantsts. 


'     '-■ -/'i^.     • 

^■'  Tip  /M^ 


*     » 

, 

f  * 

•     •    • 

4           ■. 

, 

• 

•              •    - 

"  •    ♦ 

• 

« 

• 

W            * 

•■           • 

rf 

• 

•                * 

*            t. 

• 

«  • 

•>            • 

•  « 

•     *        * 

• 

•    '.• 

.  . . 

. 

• 

,, 

■     *    » 

"                       • 

fc     « 

•          • 

• 

•    • 

•                 * 
•           * 

«            « 

• 

•       <*      • 

* 
•     *     • 

•■      • 

•       •  • 

•           w 

.• 

• 

»     • 

•  •     • 

« 

•    • 

» 

•    « 

1        • 

•'       .* 

i  * 

• 

a 

•        « 

*«u 

r 

• 

• 
1 

* 
• 

•     •     • 

•    *- 

•     1      < 

CONTENTS. 


PAGE 

Introductory  Notice  by  Dr.  Tyng ix 

The  Moral  Results  of  the  Romish  System 13 

The  Reading  of  the  Holy  Scriptures 53 

The  Unity  of  the  Church. 81 

The  Holiness  of  the  Church 102 

The  Catholicity  of  the  Church 116 

Apostolicity  of  the  Church 128 

Confession  and  Absolution 138 

The  Use  of  an  Unknown  Language  in  Public  "Worship...  168 

Prayer  to  the  Saints 187 

Invocation  of  Saints 207 

The  Worship  of  the  Saints 227 

The  Virgin  Mary 245 

The  Christian  Priesthood 273 

The  Sacrifice  of  the  Mass 286 

The  Sixth  Chapter  op  St.  John 305 

Transubstantiation 321 

Transubstantiation. — II 337 

Transubstantiation. — III 354 

Half-Communion 366 

Purgatory. — 1 383 

Purgatory. — II 396 

The  Supremacy  of  the  Church  of  Rome 409 

Infallibility  of  the  Church 433 

The  Antiquity  of  the  Church 462 


331248 


INTRODUCTORY    NOTICE. 

The  followiiig  work  will  be  found  equally  striking 
and  important.  It  relates  to  a  subject  wbicli  never 
more  justly  commanded  public  attention,  and  tbe  in- 
fluences and  possible  results  of  wbich,  were  never 
more  worthy  of  serious  consideration.  The  whole 
Papal  scheme,  doctrinal  and  political,  is  engaged  in  a 
vital  contest  with  the  powers  of  Truth  and  Eighteous- 
ness.  In  every  ancient  seat  of  its  dominion,  its  in- 
fluence is  waning  and  passing  away.  In  some  new 
fields  of  its  aggressive  operation  it  seems  to  be  exer- 
cising a  renewed  power  of  advance.  The  actual 
dominion  of  the  Papacy,  over  the  nations  of  Europe, 
has  gone.  It  no  longer  dwells  in  the  affections  or  the 
reverence  of  any  people.  It  is  no  longer  able  to 
exercise  a  welcome  control  over  any  government,  how- 
ever limited.  It  is  no  longer  the  unrivaled  power  in 
any  territory.  Its  bulls  and  edicts  are  rather  ridiculed 
than  reverenced.  Its  interdicts  and  excommunications 
are  thundered  forth  with  no  attending  fears  among 
the  people  who  used  to  tremble  at  their  power.     The 


X  INTRODUCTORY     NOTICE. 

Pope  has  not  the  shadow  of  temporal   power,  and 
hardly  the  token  of  influence  over  temporal  power, 
any  where  in  Europe.     France  and  Austria  pretend  a 
respect  which  neither  feels.    Piedmont  and  Spain  have 
burst  their  bonds  asunder  in  derision.     Italy  looks  on 
with  a  hatred  but  half-concealed.     And  even  Eome 
furnishes  a  home  within  its  walls  for  a   despised 
tyrant  only  because  foreign  soldiers  are  hired  to  keep 
guard  upon  their  borders.     Miserable  is  the  condition 
of  the   Man  of  Sin,  who  has  now  inherited  the  re- 
sponsibilities and  the  guilt  of  the  past  ages  of  popish 
hostility  to  the  Gospel,  and  cruelty  to  the  Saints  of 
God.     The  hour  has  arrived  when,  so  far  as  Conti- 
nental Europe  is  concerned,  he  seems  the  abhorred  of 
men.     And  the  reflecting  and  instructed  mind  can 
not  look  upon  the  whole  present  conflict,  among  the 
European  powers,  without  the  strong  anticipation,  if 
not  full  conviction,  that  the  Romish  Anti-Christ  must 
have  its  hour  of  judgment  and  punishment,  before  this 
extending  warfare  shall  have  closed.    In  the  mean 
time,   the   moral  contest  between    the  darkness  of 
Popery  and  the  light  of  the  Gospel  is  advancing  in 
other  lands.     It  would  seem  as  if  the  aggressions  of 
Popery  had  been  allowed  in  more  enlightened  nations, 
for  the  purpose  of  giving  a  field  to  that  aspect  of  the 
contest  which  the  popular  ignorance  of  older  popish 


INTRODUCTORY     NOTICE.  xi 

lands  could  not  present.  "Where  Eome  has  reigned, 
independent  intelligence,  and  the  knowledge  of  Scrip- 
ture truth,  have  been  wholly  destroyed.  She  has 
been  careful  to  have  no  prepared  intellectual  an- 
tagonist. England  and  America  have  opened  new 
fields  for  a  new  contest.  In  those  older  seats  her 
cruelty  will  be  repaid  with  fire  and  blood.  In  these 
new  ones,  her  tyranny  over  the  souls  of  men  will  be 
met  by  the  power  of  truth,  and  the  resistance  of  ac- 
cuinulated  Scripture  light.  But  both  in  the  material 
contest  with  exasperated  force,  and  in  the  intellectual 
and  moral  contest  with  well  arranged  and  fortified 
truth  and  holiness,  Eome  is  doomed  to  perish.  Yet 
the  contest  must  be  earnestly  waged  before  she  finally 
falls.  In  England  and  Ireland,  where  this  fight  is 
going  bravely  on,  the  Author  of  the  present  book, 
who  is  a  valued  evangehcal  clergyman  of  the  Church 
of  England,  and  completely  armed  and  practiced  in 
this  popish  war,  has  been  a  valuable  and  important 
agent.  The  present  work  will  be  found  deeply  in- 
teresting and  eminently  practical.  It  brings  forward 
the  argument  between  Scripture  truth  and  Eome  in 
a  clear  and  well  adapted  form.  The  simplicity  of 
style,  and  the  fertility  of  illustration  which  distin- 
guish it,  will  carry  it  home  to  every  conscience  and 
heart.    It  will  be  a  valuable  weapon  for  the  warfare 


Xll  INTRODUCTORY    NOTICE. 

OD  our  unconquered,  and,  we  believe,  -unconquerable 
soil.  It  will  furnish  information  and  strength  to 
many  minds,  and  lead  many,  in  their  private  conflicts, 
in  victory  out  from  Babylon.  This  edition  is  the 
only  complete  American  edition — omitting  nothing  but 
the  unimportant  dedication  to  Lord  Palmerston, 
which  has  no  connection  with  the  great  subject  dis- 
cussed. The  whole  consideration  of  the  moral  and 
doctrinal  corruptions  of  the  Eomish  power,  contained 
in  the  English  copy,  is  here  given,  without  alteration 
or  omission.  We  trust  it  will  find  among  American 
readers  the  attention  which  its  argument  and  power 

so  well  deserve.  • 

S.  H.  T. 


MORAL  RESULTS  OF  THE  ROMISH  SYSTEM. 


'« ♦  «■ 


That  the  amount  of  crime  in  this  country  is  too  high,  and 
the  spread  of  immorality  too  extensive,  is  the  lament  of  every 
good  man. 

It  has  been  suggested  that  new  means  should  be  tried  to 
keep  down  the  surging  of  crime,  and  restrain  the  deluge  of 
immorality,  and — in  the  subtle  spirit  of  a  certain  party 
among  us — it  is  argued,  that  convents,  and  nunneries,  and 
confessionals,  so  long  banished  from  among  us,  should  again 
be  introduced,  at  least  in  some  modified  form,  on  the  principle 
that  as  the  restraints  and  motives,  which  our  Protestant  Chris- 
tianity imposes  upon  crime  and  immorality,  have  confessedly 
failed,  there  ought  now  to  be  trial  made  of  the  restraints  and 
motives  which  are  supplied  by  the  institutions  of  the  Church 
of  Rome. 

The  most  natural  mode  of  dealing  with  this  suggestion  is 
an  inquiry,  as  to  whether  the  motives  and  restr-aints  supplied 
by  the  Church  of  Rome  have  succeeded  so  well,  or  whether  they 
have  succeeded  at  all,  in  those  countries  where  they  have  been 
tried — whether  convents,  nunneries,  and  confessionals,  have 
succeeded  in_  suppressing  crime,  and  lessening  immorality  in 
those  countries  where  Romanism  is  the  established  religion, 
as  well  as  the  popular  belief — where  all  the  laws  and  institu- 
tions of  the  land  assist  in  giving  them  efficiency,  and  where 
therefore  they  are  tried  under  circumstances  the  most  favor- 
able for  their  efficient  development;  in  short,  whether  they 


14  MORAL   RESULTS 

have  succeeded  in  such  countries,  as  well  as  the  principles  of 
our  Protestant  Christianity  have  succeeded  in  England. 

It  is  evident  that  a  problem  of  this  kind  should  be  worked, 
not  on  the  guesses  or  opinions  of  travelers,  who  seldom  see 
beneath  the  surface ;  nor  on  the  statements  of  public  journals, 
which  are  generally  the  organs  of  a  party,  but  on  evidence  of 
the  clearest  kind — evidence  removed  from  party,  and  free  fi'om 
prejudice.  This  evidence  is  in  existence ;  almost  eveiy  gov- 
ernment in  Europe  receives  regular  returns  of  the  amount  of 
crime  and  immorality  in  their  respective  States  every  year. 
These  returns  form  a  mass  of  statistical  tables,  compiled  with- 
out political  partisanship  or  religious  prejudice.  The  taint  of 
suspicion  can  not  approach  them. 

To  this  evidence  I  invite  the  attention  of  calm  and  think- 
ing men. 

In  England,  we  enjoy  the  noble  and  ennobling  privilege  of 
a  Free  Press.  It  is  the  strong  right  arm  that  protects  our 
civil  liberties,  and  the  broad  shield  that  covers  our  religious 
freedom.  Its  advantages  are  so  vast  that  we  may  well  bear 
with  its  few  disadvantages.  Among  these  latter  is  the  pub- 
licity which  it  gives  to  the  amount  of  crime  in  this  country. 
It  delights  in  unmasking  and  exposing  the  criminal.  It  allows 
no  delinquency  to  be  concealed.  It  drags  every  thing  to  the 
light  of  day,  and  publishes  it  to  the  world  :  and  in  so  doing  it 
seems  to  multiply  our  crimes.  When  any  crime  of  atrocity 
and  blood  is  perpetrated,  the  press  immediately  details  the 
particulars  and  denounces  the  criminal ;  this  is  its  first  appear- 
ance. Soon  afterward  the  Coroner  holds  his  inquest,  and  the 
evidence  is  detailed,  and  a  verdict  pronounced,  and  all  again  is 
published.  This  is  the  second  appearance.  Some  weeks 
afterward  the  accused  is  arrested  and  evidence  is  again  taken 
before  the  magistrates,  and  he  is  committed ;  and  now  all  ap- 
pears again  in  the  journals  of  the  day.  This  is  the  third 
appearance.  And  as  months  perhaps  roll  by,  and  the  assizes 
arrive,  and  the  accused  stands  his  trial,  under  aU  the  solem- 
nities of  our  tiibunals,  and  the  whole  details  are  re-opened,  all 
is  again  published  to  the  world.     This  is  the  fourth  appear- 


OF    THE    ROMISH   SYSTEM.  15 

ance.  And  thus  the  press  seems  to  multiply  our  crimes  ;  one 
murder  seems  to  become  four,  and  to  the  eye  of  a  stranger 
the  country  is  at  least  three  times  more  guilty  than  it  is.  On 
the  continent,  however,  there  is  nothing  like  this,  and  not  one 
crime  in  ten  is  ever  noticed  in  the  journals. 

This  renders  it  all  the  more  necessary  that  we  should  work 
out  the  problem  now  before  us,  neither  on  the  opinion  of  trav- 
elers nor  on  the  publicity  of  our  journals,  but  on  the  oflBcial 
and  governmental  returns  of  the  several  countries. 

It  would  be  a  needless  waste  of  time,  and  an  unnecessary 
complication  of  figures  to  touch  on  every  class  of  crime.  I 
select  one,  the  highest  of  all  crimes — murder. 

I  shall  commence  with  the  criminal  calendar  of  Protestant 
England,  and  then  proceed  in  order  to  the  several  Roman 
Catholic  countries  of  Europe. 

By  the  tables  laid  before  Parliament,  and  published  by 
order  of  the  House  in  1852,  we  are  in  possession  not  only  of 
the  state  of  the  criminal  calendar  in  1851,  but  of  its  state  for 
the  ten  years  preceding.  Erom  these  tables  it  appears  that 
the  total  number  of  persons  committed  in  1851  for  the  crime 
of  murder  was  V4.  And  of  these  committals  the  results  were 
as  follows : 

Discharged,  no-  evidence        ....  8 

Acquitted  on  trial 44 

Convicted 16 

Insane  persons 6 

Such  is  the  record  of  crime  for  1851,  and  in  this  is  com- 
prehended every  species  of  murder.  Not  only  deliberate  mur- 
der, but  poisoning  and  infanticide  and  parricide.  All  these 
forms  which  are  classed  under  difierent  heads  in  other  coun 
tries,  are  included  in  these  figures.  And  this  number  is  above 
the  average  of  the  last  ten  years.  The  total  of  committals 
during  that  period  was  718,  and  of  these  the  number  of  con- 
victions was  179,  giving  for  the  average  each  year  : 

Committals  for  murder,  less  than  ...      72 
Convictions 18 


16  -      MORAL   RESULTS 

Such  is  the  record  of  the  crime  of  murder  in  all  its  varieties 
in  England  and  Wales.  The  number  of  actual  convictions — 
of  murders  proved,  is  surprisingly  small,  and  although  they 
are  perhaps  the  truest  test  of  the  actual  amount  of  crimes,  yet, 
as  is  usual  on  criminal  statistics,  I  shall  assume  the  committals 
here  as  elsewhere,  as  the  amount  to  be  considered. 

Taking,  then,  the  average  of  committals  as  the  amount  of 
crime,  namely  Y2,  and  taking  the  population  of  England  and 
Wales,  according  to  the  census  of  1851,  at  17,927,609,  the 
proportion  of  murder  is,  four  to  every  million  of  the  popu- 
lation. 

The  transition  from  Protestant  England,  to  Roman  Catholic 
Ireland,  is  intensely  painful,  as  exhibiting  the  character  of  a 
population,  under  the  same  sovereign,  the  same  laws,  the  same 
institutions,  and  governed  by  the  same  persons.  It  is  possible, 
as  some  suggest,  that  Celtic  blood  or  race  may  be  a  cause  of 
the  difference  so  observable.  It  is  possible,  likewise,  that 
a  mistaken  sense  of  past  oppression  may  have  left  some 
baleful  traces  in  the  national  character.  At  all  events,  the 
results  are  enough  to  make  good  men  weep,  as  they  read  the 
record  of  blood,  and  more  than  enough  to  prove  that  the 
moral  restraints,  which  are  imposed  upon  crime  by  the  prin- 
ciples of  Romanism,  are  far  less  efficient  than  those  imposed 
by  the  principles  of  Protestantism. 

A  return  has  been  laid  on  the  table  of  the  House  of  Com- 
mons, containing  the  number  of  committals  for  murder  in 
Ireland  from  July,  1836,  to  April,  1839.  The  total  was  645  ; 
being  a  yearly  average  of  235,  or  no  less  than  thirty-three 
murders  to  each  miUion  of  the  population  ! 

Since  that  period,  however,  there  has  happily  been  a  vast 
improvement.  Large  masses  of  the  population  have  emi- 
grated ;  great  numbers  have  become  Protestant ;  and  a  return 
has  been  laid  before  Parliament  in  1851,  containing  the  amount 
of  committals  for  murder  during  a  period  of  seven  years.  The 
total  is  914,  being  a  yearly  average  of  130.  This  figure,  com- 
pared with  the  last  census,  gives  about  nineteen  murders  to 
each  million  of  the  population. 


OF   THE    ROMISH    SYSTEM.  l7 

The  country  tliat  comes  next  in  order,  is  Roman  Catholic 
Belgium.  Being  placed  in  the  same  parallel  of  latitude,  it  is 
subjected  to  the  same  climatic  influences  as  England.  Its  civil 
institutions  are  characterized  by  as  large  an  amount  of  liberty, 
and  the  grand  distinction  between  them  is  that  of  Religion, 
There  is  no  nation  in  Europe  more  fitted  to  exhibit  the  power 
of  those  restraints  Romanism  imposes  upon  crime  ;  for  none 
is  so  chcTacterized,  by  all  that  is  best  and  purest  in  the 
piety  of  tie  Church  of  Rome.  The  population  of  Belgium  is 
essentially  pious  and  religious  according  to  the  principles  of 
that  churcl. 

In  the  last  returns  laid  before  the  king  by  the  Minister  of 
Justice,  and  published  in  1852,*  we  find  the  number  of  ac- 
cused, that  ii,  the  number  of  committals  for  murder,  in  each 
year  for  a  period  of  ten  years : 

I 
I 

Ckses  prosecuted,         .        .        .        53t 
Cises  unknown,    ....        301 


844 


This  numbei  contains  all  cases  of  assassination,  poisoning, 
infanticide,  paificide,  and  generally  all  the  forms,  which  in 
England  are  siuply  classed  as  murder.  They  amount  to  the 
yearly  average  of  84.  And  this  figure  compared  with 
4,337,673,  the  ^ount  of  the  population  at  the  last  census 
in  1846,  gives  eighteen  murders  in  each  million  of  the 
population. 

In  contrasting  with  this  the  condition  of  Roman  Catholic 
France  as  to  tie  same  crime  of  murder,  we  find  our  task 
greatly  facilitated  by  the  able  work  of  Monsieur  Guerry,  him- 
self a  member  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  This  work,  ^^Statis- 
tique  morale  de  ld,Fi'ance"  has  been  approved  and  adopted 
by  the  Royal  Acacimy  of  Science  in  Paris. 

i 
*  "  Administration  \e  la  Justice  civile  et  criminelle  de  la  Belgique, 

par  M.  D.  Lentz,  Chef  (e  division  au  Ministere  de  la  Justice,  Bruxelles, 

1852." 


18 


MORAL    RESULTS 


This  work  on  the  statistics  of  crime  in  France  gi\es  the 
following  as  the  average  of  yearly  crime  from  the  returns  of 
six  years : 

Murder,  before  the  Civil  Tribunals,  .        .     298 

Assassination, 255 

Infanticide, 118 

Poisoning, 40 

Parricide, 13 

Murder,  etc.,  before  Military  Tribunals,    .     217* 

941 
There  was  thus  a  total  of  941  as  the  yearly  iverage  of 
murders  in  their  several  varieties.  From  this  jst  are  ex- 
cluded all  cases  of  manslaughter,  where  there  was  no  appear- 
ance of  malicious  intention  to  murder ;  these  amounted  on 
the  yearly  average  to  368  more,  so  that  the  foregoing  gives 
the  averages  only  of  those  crimes,  that  are  propfrly  described 
as  Murder. 

This  work,  however,  was  published  in  1833.  And  it  is 
important  to  know  the  state  of  France  at  p-esent  as  con- 
cerns this  class  of  crime.  This  is  contained  ii  the  "  Compte 
general  de  V Administration  de  la  Justice  crimiielle  en  France, 
1851,"  and  presented,  by  command,  to  the  Enperor  by  the 
Minister  of  Justice,  and  printed  by  him  in  18/3.  The  record 
of  committals  for  that  year  is  as  follows  : 

Murder,  before  the  Civil  Tribunals, 
Assassinations,       .... 

Infanticide, 

Poisoning, 

Parricide, 

8721 

*  The  only  difficulty  in  this  statement  of  Monsieur  Guerry,  is  that  in 
this  last  item,  being  the  average  of  ten  years,  triid  before  the  Military 
Tribunals — the  cases  of  manslaughter  were  induced.  In  the  preceding 
items,  all  such  cases  are  excluded.  It  does  not,  aowever,  much  affect 
the  yearly  average. 

•j-  The  number  of  accused  is  a  little  more  thai  the  number  of  crimes 
given  in  the  beginning  of  the  report,  as  several  persons  were  implicated 
in  some  of  the  murders. 


.     !42 

P- 

48 

.    369 

P- 

49 

.    182 

P- 

50 

.      47 

P- 

51 

.      32 

P- 

40 

OF   THE    ROMISH    SYSTEM.  19 

This  gives  a  total  of  872  persons  charged  with  murder  for 
the  year,  exclusive  of  those  tried  before  the  military  tribunals. 
The  omission  of  these  from  the  returns  is  not  unnatural,  when 
it  is  remembered  that  it  is  a  military  government,  and  that 
such  a  return  of  military  crimes  would  not  be  either  discreet 
or  palatable  at  present.  The  number  may  very  fairly  be  reck- 
oned as  the  same  as  already  given  from  Guerry,  as  the  aver- 
age of  ten  years,  namely,  217,  which,  added  to  the  872  before 
the  civil  tribunals,  makes  a  total  of  1089,  as  the  amount  of 
this  class  of  crime  in  one  year  in  France.  This  figure,  com- 
pared with  the  amount  of  the  population  according  to  the  last 
census  in  1846,  namely,  35,400,486,  gives  thirty-oke  mur- 
ders to  each  million  of  the  population. 

We  next  turn  to  the  empire  of  Austria,  essentially  Roman 
Catholic — an  empire  that  may  well  be  accepted  as  the  most 
suitable  illustration  of  the  civilizing  powers  of  the  Church  of 
Rome,  as  being  an  empire  where  that  church  is  the  established 
church,  the  almost  universal  church,  an  empire  Avhere  Prot- 
estant principles  are  barely  known,  and  scarcely  tolerated — 
where  all  the  restraints  which  Romanism  imposes  upon  crime, 
all  her  convents  and  monasteries,  all  her  monks  and  nuns,  all 
her  confessionals  and  penances  are  established,  sanctioned,  and 
enforced  by  the  laws  of  the  land. 

The  criminal  statistics  of  this  empire  are  carefully  com- 
piled. There  is  established  on  imperial  authority,  an  "  Im- 
perial Commission  for  Statistics,"  and  their  duty  is  to  collect 
these  every  year.  The  Secretary  of  this  commission  has  pub- 
lished last  year  the  results  in  two  volumes,  entitled,  "  Die' 
Stastistik  des  Oesterreichischen  Kaiserstaates."  5 

These  volumes  contain  the  official  or  governmental  returns 
as  to  the  number  of  murders  perpetrated  during  the  last  twenty 
years,  and  they  also  give  the  average  numbers  of  each  quin- 
quennial period,  so  that  there  is  every  facility  for  ascertaining 
the  yearly  averages.    They  are  as  follows  : 


20  MORAL   RESULTS 

Murders  tried  before  the  Civil  Tribunals    .        .  1*10 

Infanticide 124 

Murders  tried  before  the  Military  Tribunals        .  431* 


1325 


Such,  is  the  yearly  average !  There  are  thus  more  murders 
committed — more  human  lives  sacrificed  every  year  in  the 
Austrian  Empire,  in  cold,  wanton,  willful  murder,  than  fall  in 
some  of  the  fiercest  and  sternest  conflicts  of  modern  warfare. 
It  may  be  the  result  of  absolute  and  military  government,  or 
it  may  be  the  fruit  of  evil  laws  and  defective  institutions ;  but 
at  all  events,  notwthstanding  all  the  restraints  which  Roman- 
ism supplies  against  crime,  this  Roman  Catholic  empire  ex- 
hibits an  amount  of  this  highest  class  of  crime,  which,  com- 
pared with  the  population  at  the  last  census,  namely,  36,514,- 
466,  is  nearly  thirty-six  murders  to  each  million  of  the 
population ! 

Attention  must  now  be  directed  to  Roman  Catholic  Ba- 
varia ;  next  to  the  Empire  of  Austria,  it  holds  the  highest 
place  among  the  Roman  Catholic  powers  of  Germany ;  and, 
being  a  country  essentially  governed  on  the  principles  of  the 
Church  of  Rome,  and  sanctioning  by  law,  and  encouraging  by 
patronage  all  the  institutions  characteristic  of  that  church,  it 
may  justly  be  regarded  as  a  fitting  stage  on  which  to  test  the 
efficacy  of  the  principles  of  Romanism  in  the  repression  of 
crime. 

The  ofiicial  and  governmental  retm'ns  are  regularly  pub- 
lished, giving  the  amount  of  crime  of  every  kind  as  jierpe- 
trated  in  the  kingdom.f  The  returns  of  five  years  are  now 
before  me,  and  are  as  follows : 

*  The  only  difBculty  is  as  to  this  item.  The  return  is  not  an  average, 
but  only  a  return  for  one  year,  namely,  1847.  The  Secretary  states, 
that  owing  to  the  Revolution  in  1848,  it  was  impossible  to  ascertain  the 
precise  number  since  then.  This  number  may,  therefore,  be  taken  as 
the  ordinary  amount. 

•j-  "  Beitrtige  zur  Statistik  des  Konigreichs  Bayern,  Von  Hermann, 
Munchen,  1853." 


OF   THE   ROMISH   SYSTEM, 

Simple  Murder 

Assassination    .... 

Murder  by  Poisoning 

Murder  of  children  before  birth 
"  "         during  birth 

"  "         afterbirth    . 


21 


.  249 
.  834 
.  51 
.  181 
.  20 
.  219 

1554 


These  are  tlie  total  for  five  years,  omitting  all  cases  of  at- 
tempts at  murder,  and  all  cases  of  unintentional  homicide. 
Tliey  give  311  as  the  yearly  average  of  this  class  of  crime, 
and  this  figure,  when  compared  with  the  amount  of  the  popu- 
lation, which  by  the  last  census  in  1849,  was  4,520,Y51,  or 
four  millions  and  a  half,  gives  as  a  result  about  sixty-eight 
murders  to  each  million  of  the  population ! 

And  next  we  turn  to  Italy.  There  are  no  official  or  govern- 
mental returns  from  Spain  and  Portugal.  A  French  authority 
states  that  in  Spain  the  murders  and  attempts  at  murder, 
amount  on  the  yearly  average  to  about  250  to  each  million 
of  the  population !  But  I  can  not  find  that  his  statement  has 
the  authority  of  governmental  returns,  and  our  present  argu- 
ment confines  itself  exclusively  to  them. 

We  turn  therefore  to  Italy,  and  shall  proceed  in  order 
through  its  several  provinces.  It  is  the  land  of  popes,  and 
cardinals,  and  prelates,  and  priests,  and  monks,  and  nuns — 
the  land  of  convents  and  monasteries — the  land,  where  all  the 
governments  are  despotic  and  absolute,  and  give  all  their  in- 
fluence and  power  to  the  Church  of  Rome ;  the  land  therefore 
of  all  others,  the  fittest  to  exhibit  the  true  character  of  that 
church  in  the  influence  or  potency  of  her  principles  in  the  re- 
pression of  crime,  as  being  the  land  essentially  the  most 
adapted  for  their  favorable  development. 

The  first  of  the  Italian  kingdom  is  Sardinia,  once  so  re- 
markable for  its  persecution  of  the  Protestants  of  its  valleys, 
and  now  for  its  progress  in  free  institutions.  The  returns  of 
crime  are  given  from  the  police  in  Alfieri,  and  cited  from  him 
in  Mittermaier  ;  they  embrace  a  period  of  seven  years,  all  pre- 
ceding the  troubles  of  the  late  Revolution,  and  therefore  unaf- 


22  MORAL    RESULTS 

fected  by  them.  The  total  number  of  murders  amounts  to 
712,  which,  divided  by  seven,  gives  us  a  yearly  average  of  101 
cases  of  murder.  The  number  of  persons  stabbed,  poniarded, 
pistoled,  and  otherwise  wounded  was  Yl3  on  the  yearly  aver- 
age. But  the  number  of  actual  murders  being  101,  when 
compared  with  the  population,  which  in  1848  was  4,916,084, 
gives  about  twenty  to  each  million  of  the  population. 

The  next  province  of  Italy  is  the  two  Lombardies,  where 
the  amount  of  this  class  of  crime  ascends  still  hig-her.  The 
number  of  murders  discovered,  together  with  those  the  pei-pe- 
trators  of  which  had  altogether  escaped,  and  with  the  addition 
of  the  cases  of  infanticide,  amounted  in  two  years  to  450. 
The  details  of  these  will  be  found  in  Mittermaier ;  and  the 
result  is  a  yearly  average  of  225,  a  figure  which,  when  com- 
pared with  the  population  according  to  th^  last  census,  namely 
5,047,472,  gives  about  forty-five  murders  to  each  million  of 
the  population  ! 

The  Grand  Ducal  states  of  Tuscany  come  next  in  order, 
and  the  conspicuous  position  which  their  rulers  have  lately  as- 
sumed for  this  province,  in  prohibiting  under  civil  penalties 
of  fine  and  imprisonment,  the  perusal  of  the  Holy  Scriptures, 
and  re-enacting  the  middle-age  laws,  imposing  the  penalty  of 
banishment  or  death  on  a  change  of  religious  opinion,  gives  a 
new  and  peculiar  interest  to  the  state  of  crime  within  its  bor- 
ders. The  returns  of  all  crimes  in  Tuscany  for  nine  consecu- 
tive years,  namely,  from  1830  to  1838  will  be  found  in  Mitter- 
maier.    The  following  are  the  murders  : 


Murder  with  robbery- 

.    26 

Premeditated  Murder 

.     66 

Voluntary  Murder     . 

.  305 

Assassination    . 

.  233 

Parricide 

.     24 

Murder  of  wives  by  husbands,  and 

viceversd  27 

Murder  by  poison     . 

, 

.     22 

Infanticide 

• 

.     54 

757 


OF   THE    ROMISH    SYSTEM.  23 

This  number  distributed  tbrough  nine  years,  gives  no  less 
tban  84  as  the  yearly  average.  The  amount  of  the  popula- 
tion of  Tuscany  in  1841  was  1,489,000,  so  that  the  amount 
of  tliis  class  of  crime,  is  about  fifty-six  to  each  million  of  the 
population ! 

And  next  we  arrive  at  the  Papal  States — Rome.  It  is 
far  from  easy  to  obtain  accurate  and  precise  information  upon 
any  subject  in  these  States  of  the  Church.  Happily,  however, 
as  concerns  our  present  inquiry,  the  British  government  de- 
puted Dr.  Bowring  to  proceed  to  Rome,  and  to  procure  for 
them  statistical  information  respecting  central  Italy,  for  com- 
mercial purposes.  The  report  was  laid  by  Lord  Palmerston 
on  the  table  of  the  House  of  Commons,  and  has  been  printed 
by  order  of  Parliament.  In  that  report  is  a  return  of  the  num- 
ber of  persons  imprisoned  for  murder  in  the  Papal  states,  at 
the  period  of  Dr.  Bowling's  visit.  The  amount  was  580. 
These  were  persons,  some  incarcerated  after  trial,  undergoing 
their  sentences,  and  some  awaiting  their  trial.  And  of  these 
it  may  be  probably  said,  that  one  third  were  perpetrated  dur- 
ing the  year ;  this  would  give  for  the  Roman  States  193  as 
the  murders  of  one  year,  and  to  these  are  to  be  added  the 
murders  in  the  provinces  of  Macerata  and  Ferrara,  as  detailed 
in  the  returns,  namely  146.  This  gives  us  the  proximate 
number  339.  This  is  the  figure  with  which  we  are  to  deal, 
and  comparing  this  figure  with  the  population  of  the  Papal 
states,  which,  in  1846,  was  2,908,115,  the  result  gives 
above  one  hundred  and  thirteen  to  each  million  of  the 
population  ! 

The  island  of  Sicily  comes  next  in  review,  and  presents  a 
state  of  crime  not  much  better  than  the  preceding.  In  the  re- 
turns for  murder  of  various  kinds,  for  the  year  1833,  they 
amount  to  1Y6,  and  from  the  returns  of  several  years  it  is 
stated  by  Mittermaier  that  they  ranged  from  160  as  the 
lowest,  to  188  as  the  highest,  that  is,  that  174  may  be 
taken  as  the  yearly  average.  The  population  in  the  year 
1834  was  1,936,033,  or  less  than  two  millions,  so  that  the 


24 


MORAL   RESULTS 


yearly  average  of  murders  is  about  ninett  to  eacli  million  of 
the  population ! 

But  the  last  and  darkest  picture  of  crime  is  Naples.  A 
vail  might  well  be  drawn  over  so  terrible  and  revolting  a  re- 
cord, but  the  revelations  of  Mr.  Gladstone  respecting  that 
country  have  prepared  the  mind  of  England  for  the  truth. 
The  following  is  the  criminal  calendar  for  one  year,  as  given 
in  Mittermaier,  and  that  too  in  1832,  long  before  the  scenes 
of  the  last  Revolution : 


Paxricide           .... 

6 

Murder  of  wives  by  husbands,  and  vice  versd    3  T 

Infanticide* 15 

Murder  of  relations    . 

21 

Poisoning          .... 

5 

Premeditated  Murder 

134 

Intentional  homicide 

663 

Assassination    .... 

89 

Murder  combined  with  robbery 

.    15 

«             "           "    adultery 

.      1 

1045 


Such  seems  the  ordinary  list  of  crime  in  Naples.  The 
amount  of  population  exclusive  of  Sicily  is  about  6,066,900 ; 
at  that  period  it  was  httle  more  than  five  millions.  But, 
taking  it  at  the  highest  figure,  it  -will  give  about  one  hundred 
AND  seventy-four  murdcTs  to  each  million  of  the  population  ! 

The  yearly  average  of  murders  in  all  Italy — in  that 
land  where  the  Church  of  Rome  is  supreme,  and  without 
a  rival,  is  1,968,  so  that  every  year  there  are  left  murdered 
in  cold  blood  more  men  and  women  and  children  than 
often  fall  in  our  most  blood-stained  battle-fields.  And 
this  in  the  land  of  convents  and  nunneries  and  confes- 
sionals— in  the  land  where,  of  all  else  on  the  wide  sur- 
face of  God's  creation,  we  might  expect  the  full  and  happy 


*  The  actual  number  of  cases  of  infanticide  was  84.    The  preceding 
figure  gives  the  convictions,  but  84  children  were  murdered  I 


I 


OF    THE    ROMISH    SYSTEM. 


25 


development  of  all  the  restraints  wliicli  the  Church  of  Rome 
imposes  upon  crime — in  the  land  where  priests  and  monks  and 
nuns  exceed  an  hundred  and  twenty  thousand  !  Mr.  White- 
side  informs  us  that  at  Assissi  there  are  twelve  convents ;  at 
Foligno,  twelve  for  monks,  and  eight  for  nuns ;  at  Spoletto, 
twenty-two ;  at  Terni,  five  ;  at  Narni,  seven  for  monks,  and  five 
for  nuns.  It  appears  too  that  at  Perugia,  there  are  thirty-four, 
while  in  Rome  there  are  sixty-four  for  monks,  and  fifty  for 
nuns !  And  yet  it  is  in  this  very  district  that  the  murders 
amount  to  one  hundred  and  thirteen  to  the  million  of  the 
population !  while,  in  Naples  and  Sicily  there  are,  or  rather 
were,  a  few  years  ago,  16,455  monks,  and  13,000  nuns, 
the  largest  number  in  any  country  in  the  world,  and 
there  there  is  also  the  largest  proportion  of  crime  to  be 
found  in  any  one  country  on  the  whole  surface  of  God's 
creation ! 

The  following  are  the  results  in  all  the  several  Roman  Ca- 
tholic countries,  as  contrasted  with  Protestant  England : 


Roman  Cathol 

ic  Ireland 

.    .     19  to  the  million 

i(           11 

Belgium   . 

.     .     18 

11 

(1            (1 

Franco 

.     .     31 

II 

((            II 

Austria    . 

.     36 

II 

(i            II 

Bavaria    . 

.     68 

i< 

((            II 

Sardinia   . 

.     .     20 

It 

((            II 

Lombardy 

.     45 

II 

«            II 

Tuscany 

.     56 

II 

The  Papal  States      .    .    . 

.  113 

(1 

Roman  Catholic  Sicily  .     . 

.     90 

II 

U                       11 

Naples 

.  174 

i< 

Protestant  England      .    . 

.       4 

II 

I  ask — are  not  these  figures  eloquent  ? 

One  thing  at  least  is  certain,  as  derived  from  these  figures, 
ofiicial  and  governmental  as  they  are,  namely,  that  convents 
and  nunneries,  and  confessionals,  and  all  such  institutions  of 
Romanism  have  failed,  in  those  countries,  where  they  have 
been  tried  under  the  circumstances  most  favorable  for  their 
development — have  failed  wretchedly  and  signally.    And  the 


26  MORAL   RESULTS 

argument,  that  we  ought  to  introduce  into  this  country  the  in- 
stitutions of  Komanism  even  in  a  modified  form,  as  more  ef- 
ficient in  repressing  crime  than  the  principles  and  motives  of 
Protestant  Christianity,  is  not  only  answered,  but  annihilated. 

It  may,  however,  be  argued  that  these  disastrous  and  horri- 
fying results  in  Roman  Catholic  countries  are  not  to  be  attrib- 
uted to  the  religion  of  Rome,  but  to  bad  laws,  evil  institutions, 
and  unwise  legislation.  This  is  just  and  true  in  a  measure. 
The  free  and  noble  institutions  of  Protestant  England — her 
wise  and  equitable  laws — ^her  civil  freedom  and  her  religious 
liberty — pervaded  as  they  are  by  the  moral  principles  of  her 
Protestant  Christianity,  all  tend  to  the  suppression  of  crime, 
while  in  Roman  Catholic  lands,  the  despotism  of  absolute 
power — the  military  government  that  with  gauntleted  hand 
dashes  the  printing-press  in  pieces,  or  holds  it  in  chains — the 
sacerdotal  system,  which  forges  the  Procrustean  bed  of  a  state 
religion,  on  which  every  man  must  lie,  whatever  be  his  stature 
and  have  his  head  and  feet  chopped  to  fit  it — all  these  com- 
bine to  engender  crime ;  and  while  the  people  are  left  with- 
out justice  against  oppression — without  redress  in  their  wrongs, 
it  is  not  wonderful  that  they  take  redress  into  their  own  hands, 
and  in  a  spirit  of  wild  justice  vindicate  their  own  wrongs,  and 
avenge  themselves.  But  still  it  may  well  be  asked,  and  it  is  a 
cogent  and  awkward  question,  how  it  comes  to  pass  that  pure 
and  eternal  justice  has  thus  taken  wing  and  fled  from  every 
Roman  Catholic  country  in  Europe,  as  from  some  ungenial 
clime,  and  has  made  her  home  in  Protestant  England  as  in 
her  native  place. 

And,  although  laws  and  governments  may  explain  in  some 
degree  the  causes  of  so  marked  a  difference  in  criminality, 
yet  it  is  impossible  to  conceal  or  stifle  the  conviction  that 
there  may  be  some  element  of  difference  between  Protestant- 
ism and  Romanism,  which  contains  the  secret.  The  practice 
of  priestly  absolution,  as  rife  among  the  members  of  the 
Church  of  Rome — the  practice  of  commuting  penance  or  re- 
pentance for  money,  so  general  among  them — the  belief  of 
an  amount  of  merit  in  attending  masses  in  privileged  places, 


OF   THE    ROMISH    SYSTEM.  27 

as  a  set-ofF  against  tlie  demerit  of  sins — and  above  all,  the 
belief  that  masses  can  relieve  the  souls  suffering  for  their  sins 
in  Purgatory,  combined  with  the  practice  of  buying  and  sell- 
ing those  masses,  all  tend  to  diminish  the  religious  fear  and 
awe  associated  with  crime  against  God.  The  prevalence  of 
such  belief  and  such  practices  in  any  land  tends  necessarily 
to  the  multiplication  of  crime ;  and  while  this  accounts  for 
the  higher  criminality  of  the  Roman  Catholic  countries  of 
Europe,  their  total  exclusion  from  Protestant  England,  is  one 
great  element  toward  the  diminution  of  such  crimes  within  her 
borders. 

But  eternal  and  sacred  truth  demands  a  further  statement. 
There  is  an  element  of  difference  between  the  two  religions 
of  immense  importance.     It  is  this — 

Both  Romanism  and  Protestantism  are  agreed  as  to  the 
deep,  black,  awful  sinfulness  of  the  murderer.  They  are  in 
accord  as  far  as  the  murderer  himself  is  concerned,  as  to  his 
conscience,  as  to  his  soul,  as  to  his  eternal  destinies  if  he  die 
unrepentant.  They  may  differ  indeed  as  to  the  mode  of  get- 
ting rid  of  his  guilt,  but  they  are  in  accord  so  far  as  the  mur- 
derer himself  is  concerned,  while  they  are  as  wide  as  the  poles 
respecting  the  murdered  victim. 

This  difference  is  wide  and  important  in  its  results.  That 
which  gives  a  double-dyed  guilt  and  shivering  horror  to  the 
crime  of  murder  in  the  eyes  of  a  Protestant  is,  that  it  is  sud- 
denly sending  an  immortal  being  unbidden  before  his  final 
Judge ; — unprepared,  and  perhaps  unthinking,  before  the  last 
judgment,  then  and  there,  "  with  all  his  imperfections  on  his  ' 
-head,"  to  receive  his  eternal  destinies.  There  is  no  change  in 
the  grave ;  as  he  lived  and  died,  so  he  rises  and  is  judged. 
It  is  this  that  gives  such  unspeakable  awe  to  this  crime,  and 
makes  a  good  man  shudder  at  its  very  name.  But  in  the 
Church  of  Rome  all  this  feeling,  so  cogent  in  restraining  this 
crime,  is  annihilated.  In  her  it  is  held,  that  the  moral  con- 
dition of  a  man  may  undergo  a  change  in  the  grave — that  he 
may  be  purified  and  bettered  in  his  after  state  by  purgatorian 
sufferings ;  and  that  after  a  time  he  may  even  stand  spotless 


28  MORAL   RESULTS 

and  blameless  before  bis  Judge.  In  connection  witb  this  doc- 
trine it  is  beld  tbat  the  friends  of  the  dead  can  relieve  bis 
sufferings,  and  secure  bis  release,  by  getting  masses  said  for 
bis  soul.  And  these  masses  are  to  be  bought  and  sold  as  any- 
other  merchandise  in  the  market.  The  result  is,  that  the 
murderer  looks  on  his  bleeding  victim,  as  he  lies  stark  and 
ghastly,  and  he  comforts  himself  with  the  thought  that  the 
surviving  friends  of  the  victim  have  it  in  their  power  to  save 
him,  by  having  masses  offered  for  his  soul ;  and  tbat  if  they 
indeed  fail — ^if  they  withhold  the  money  from  the  priest,  be 
himself  has  but  to  pay  a  trifling  sum  for  the  required  number 
of  masses  ;  and  he  thus  relieves  himself — he  disburdens  bis 
conscience  of  all  that  which  gives  the  highest  awe — the 
darkest  and  dreariest  color  to  this  crime  in  the  eyes  of  a 
Protestant  Christian. 

I  have  myself  personally  witnessed  this  traffic.  There  are 
certain  altars,  called  "  privileged  altars,"  in  the  churches  of 
Rome ;  the  special  pi-ivilege  of  which  is,  that  a  single  mass 
said  at  such  altar  is  adequate  to  release  from  purgatorian  suf- 
fering the  soul  for  which  it  is  offered.  I  witnessed  personally 
the  sale  of  this  privileged  mass  to  a  large  number  of  persons 
in  the  Church  or  Basilica  of  Santa  Croce  di  Gerusalemme  in 
Rome.  Each  person  stated  the  name  of  the  friend  supposed 
to  be  suffering  in  purgatory — paid  four  pauls,  about  one  shil- 
ling and  eight-pence,  and  received  an  acknowledgment  in 
writing  !  I  witnessed  again  the  same  process  at  the  feast  of 
the  Assumption  at  Varallo  in  1851.  I  bad  visited  the  Sacro 
Monte  there  to  witness  the  pilgrimages  to  the  shrine  of  the 
Virgin.  The  high  altar  of  the  principal  church  possesses  the 
privilege  already  alluded  to.  And  near  it  was  a  bureau  or 
office  ;  with  a  notice  publicly  setting  forth  to  the  multitude  of 
pilgrims,  that  it  was  there  they  received  the  payments  for  the 
privileged  masses,  for  the  reUef  of  the  souls  in  Purgatory. 
The  pilgrims  were  entering,  paying  their  money,  giving  the 
names  of  their  departed  friends,  recei\ang  an  acknowledg* 
ment,  and  then  withdrawing.  I  entered  myself ;  I  stated  my 
wish  to  release  the  soul  of  a  departed  friend.    The  official 


OF   THE    ROMISH    SYSTEM.  29 

bowed  courteously,  and  opened  a  large  account-book,  asked 
me  my  name. 

I  gave  bim  my  name. 

He  entered  it  in  tbis  account-book,  but  spelled  it,  as  most 
Italians  do  witb  an  Englisb  name,  so  tbat  I  could  not  myself 
recognize  it.  We  botb  smiled,  and  be  apologized  on  account 
of  tbe  difficulty  of  writing  a  foreign  name. 

I  asked  bim  bow  mucb  I  was  to  pay  for  tbe  release  of  my 
fiiend. 

He  replied — two  francs  Milanese  and  seven  cents. 

I  gave  bim  a  five-franc  piece  and  received  tbe  cbange,  by 
wbicb  it  appeared  be  retained  about  one  sbilling  and  eigbt- 
pence. 

He  tben  asked  tbe  name  of  my  friend  in  Purgatory,  wbose 
soul  was  to  be  released. 

I  felt  tbat  tbis  was  tbe  moment  for  demonstrating  tbe 
absurdity  and  knavery  of  tbis  system.  I  tbougbt  tbat  tbe 
best  way  of  doing  tbis  was  to  give  tbe  name  of  some  one 
wbo  was  certainly  not  tben  in  Purgatory.  I  gave  my  own 
name ! 

He  immediately  banded  me  a  book — tbe  book  of  tbe  names 
of  all  souls  to  be  released  by  tbe  privileged  mass,  and  wbicb 
book  is  deposited  on  tbe  altar,  so  tbat  wben  tbe  priest  says 
tbe  privileged  mass,  be  may  name  audibly  or  mentally  tbe 
names  of  tbose  to  be  released.  In  tbis  book  tbere  were  en- 
tered on  tbe  same  page  above  twenty  names  already.  Ori 
banding  tbis  book  to  me  be  smiled  courteously,  and  apolo- 
gized for  giving  me  tbe  trouble  of  writing  tbe  name,  requested 
tbat  I  would  myself  write  it,  lest  be  sbould  make  any  mistake. 
I  wrote  my  own  name  at  full  lengtb  ! 

He  again  bowed  most  courteously,  apparently  intimating 
tbat  all  was  completed  for  tbe  present.  But,  remembering 
tbat  I  saw  otbers  get  receipts,  I  asked  for  one. 

On  filling  tbe  blanks  in  tbe  receipt-form,  be  asked  wbetber 
I  would  not  like  a  Blessing  for  my  friend's  soul,  as  well  as  tbe 
Mass. 

I  replied,  witb  many  tbanks,  tbat  as  tbe  privileged  mass 


30  MORAL   RESULTS 

was  sure  to  release  Lis  soul  from  Purgatory,  lie  would  not 
want  the  Blessing. 

He  smiled,  completed  the  receipt — signed  it — and  I  with- 
drew. 

Such  was  the  scene  in  which  I  personally  took  part.  The 
following  is  a  copy  of  the  receipt : 

"  1851.  Sept.  8th.  The  Sacred  Mount. 
"  I,  the  undersigned,  agent  of  the  venerable  fabric  of  the  Sacre^ 
Mount  of  Varallo,  have  received  from  Mr.  Hobart  Seymour,  the 
charity  of  one  shilling  and  eight-pence  for  one  Mass  to  be  celebrated 
at  the  perpetually  privileged  daily  altar  of  the  most  blessed  Virgin 
Mary  in  VaraUo. 

"  [In  witness.]  Agno  Bertoll"  * 

When  a  system  like  this  is  openly  and  publicly  taught,  and 
beHeved,  and  practiced,  by  the  priesthood  on  one  hand  and 
by  the  people  on  the  other  ; — a  system  by  which  either  mur- 
derer or  victim  may  be  released  from  the  sufferings  of  another 
world  by  a  small  sum  in  this — where  a  system  like  this  pre- 
vails among  the  population  of  any  country,  it  ceases  to  be  a 
matter  of  surprise  that  crime  should  abound  in  all  its  most 
dark  and  terrible  features.  The  wonder  would  be  if  it  should 
be  otherAvise. 

But  there  is  another  field  for  inquiry,  beside  the  Criminal 
Calendars.  The  argument  against  which  I  am  contending, 
refers  to  the  domain  of  vice  and  immorality,  rather  than  to 


*  The  original  is  as  follows : — 

1851,  addi  8  Smbre,  dal  S.  Monte. 
Ho  ricevuto  io  sottoscritto  assistente  della  veueranda  Fabrica  del 
sacro  Monte  di  Varallo  dal  Signer  Hobart  Seymour,  I'elemosina  di  lire, 
2 :  7.  di  Mil.  per  Messe  unada  celebrarsi  all'  altare  privilegiato  quoti- 
diano  perpetuo  della  Beattissima  Vergine  Maria. 

In  fede.  Agno  Bertoli. 

This  form  of  receipt  is  printed,  and  is  surmounted  by  a  drawing  of 
the  high  altar.  The  term  "  elemosina,"  is  that  usually  applied  to 
moneys  granted  for  masses,  for  the  reUef  of  souls  in  purgatory. 


OF    THE    ROMISH    SYSTEM,  31 

the  province  of  criminal  police  ;  and  as  that  argument  is,  that 
we  have  sunk  to  such  a  depth  of  depra\dty  in  Protestant  Eng- 
land, that  it  becomes  desirable  to  introduce  the  peculiar 
checks,  which  the  convents,  and  nunneries,  and  sisterhoods, 
and  confessionals,  and,  generally,  the  institutions  of  the 
Church  of  Rome,  impose  upon  vice  and  immorality  ;  so  we 
must  now  proceed  to  examine,  whether  these  have  indeed  suc- 
ceeded so  well  in  Roman  Catholic  comitries,  as  to  induce  us 
to  consent  to  try  the  perilous  experiment  of  their  influence«^n 
England. 

In  turning  to  this  part  of  our  subject,  I  would  bear  in  mind 
that  there  are  many  circumstances  which  tend  to  real  and  ac- 
tual immorality,  besides  the  defects  of  religious  principle. 
There  are  sins  that  may  be  said,  in  a  measure,  to  belong  to 
latitude  and  longitude,  to  the  domain  of  geography,  rather 
than  to  the  province  of  churches.  The  vice  of  excess  in  spir- 
ituous drink  is  greatest  as  you  ascend,  and  least  as  you  de- 
scend, in  the  scale  of  latitude.  The  nearer  we  approach  the 
poles  the  more  it  prevails,  and  the  nearer  Ave  touch  the  equa- 
tor the  more  it  disappears.  The  vice  of  polygamy  with  all  its 
attendant  evils,  seem  mainly  governed  by  longitude,  for  the 
further  we  travel  to  welcome  the  sunrise  in  the  east  the  more 
it  prevails,  and  the  more  we  seek  the  sunset  of  the  far  west, 
the  more  surely  it  vanishes  away.  It  must  not  be  said,  or 
thought  for  a  moment,  that  religion  has  not  its  full  influences 
in  restraining  both  of  these  odious  tendencies,  but  a  wise  man 
will  see  and  feel,  that  in  estimating  the  comparative  morality 
of  a  people,  it  is  necessary  to  take  into  account  the  influence 
of  climate,  the  geographical  position,  and  the  civil  institutions 
of  nations.  The  essential  morality  or  immorality  of  any  act, 
must  of  course  be  determined  exclusively  by  the  word  of  reve- 
lation. But  in  estimating  the  comparative  morality  of  widely- 
separated  and  far  difierent  peoples,  there  are  other  elements 
that  deserve  consideration  in  their  measm-e.  Religion  is  the 
main  element,  but  climate,  and  government,  and  civil  institu- 
tions, are  items  of  no  slight  importance. 

There  are  institutions,  or  rather  customs  in  Northern  and 


82  MORAL   RESULTS 

Western  Germany,  -where  Protestantism  prevails,  respecting 
marriage,  by  no  means  favorable  to  purity  of  morals.  And 
there  are  other  and  different  laws,  local  in  their  nature,  that 
greatly  tend,  in  Eastern  and  Southern  Germany,  which  is 
chiefly  Roman  Catholic,  to  the  injury  of  marriage,  and  the 
promotion  of  immorality.  The  Poor  Law  of  England  has  in 
like  manner  too  often  operated  unfavorably  for  the  morality 
of  the  population.  And,  therefore,  in  forming  an  estimate  of 
t^e  comparative  morality  or  immorality  of  different  nations, 
we  are  bound  to  retain  in  memory  that  there  are  other 
elements,  besides  their  respective  religions,  to  be  taken  into 
consideration. 

It  is  with  a  full  sense  of  the  weight  due  to  all  such  con- 
siderations, that  I  propose  now  to  compare  the  morality  of 
Protestant  England  with  that  of  Roman  Catholic  countries; 
that  so  we  may  learn  whether  the  convents,  and  nunneries, 
and  confessionals,  and  sisterhoods  of  Rome,  have  proved  sucb 
efiectual  restraints  upon  vice  and  immorality,  as  may  make  us 
desire  to  introduce  them  into  Enofland. 

It  must  not  for  a  moment  be  supposed,  that  I  charge  the 
Church  of  Rome  with  avowedly  countenancing  vice  or  im- 
morality. She  docs  neither  the  one  nor  the  other.  And  I 
know  of  few  things  I  would  deprecate  more  distinctly,  than 
being  thought  to  give  currency  to  such  an  accusation.  The 
charge  which  I  do  bring  against  her,  is  totally  different  from 
this.  It  is,  that  whereas  all  religions,  whether  true  or  false, 
Jewish,  Christian,  Mohammedan,  Pagan,  and  all  churches, 
whether  Roman,  Greek  or  Protestant,  impose  certain  re- 
straints more  or  less  strong  on  vice  or  immorality,  and  offer 
some  principles  more  or  less  efficacious  to  protect  against 
temptation ;  those  restraints  and  those  principles  which  the 
Church  of  Rome  offers  are  weaker  than  those  of  other  churches, 
I  do  not  charge  her  with  countenancing  vice,  but  I  do  charge 
her  with  placing  weaker  restraints  upon  temptation.  I  do 
not  accuse  her  with  encouraging  immorality,  but  I  do  accuse 
her  of  advancing  weaker  principles,  as  a  protection  in  the 
time  of  temptation. 


OF   THE    ROMISH   SYSTEM.  33 

The  result  of  this  state  of  things  is  precisely  what  might  be 
expected.  Where  there  are  no  special  temptations,  there  a 
Roman  Catholic  peasantry  -will  be  found  as  moral  and  vir- 
tuous, generally  speaking,  as  a  Protestant  peasantry.  But 
wherever  temptations  exist,  as  in  large  towns,  crowded  cities, 
localities  that  surround  a  royal  court,  places  where  wealth 
panders  to  the  passions  of  the  rich,  and  corrupts  the  morals  of 
the  poor ;  in  those  regions  where  wealth  and  power  go  hand 
in  hand  with  corruption  and  vice,  there  where  the  most  seduc- 
tive temptations  exist — there  where  the  principles  and  re- 
straints of  the  different  religions  are  most  tested ;  it  is  uni- 
versally found  that  the  religion  of  Rome  is  weaker  than  our 
Protestant  Christianity.  It  is  not  that  either  the  one  religion 
or  the  other  sanctions  or  encourages  sin,  but  it  is,  that  while 
there  are  no  temptations,  the  two  systems  exhibit  no  opposite 
results ;  but  where  there  are  temptations,  there  the  restraints 
and  principles  of  Romanism  are  incomparably  weaker  and  less 
efficacious  than  those  of  Protestant  Christianity. 

In  carrying  out,  therefore,  our  present  inquiry,  it  would  be 
a  waste  of  time  to  examine,  even  if  it  were  practicable,  either 
the  bogs  of  Roman  Catholic  Ireland,  or  the  highlands  of 
Protestant  Scotland — the  valleys  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Ap- 
pennines,  or  the  heights  of  the  Protestant  Alps.  These  are 
regions  too  remote  from  those  most  seductive  temptations 
which  test  the  power  of  religious  principles,  and  in  such  re- 
gions the  population  of  all  countries  are  very  much  on  an 
equality.  I  shall,  therefore,  confine  myself  to  the  scenes  of 
wealth,  and  power,  and  commerce,  and  manufacture  and  popu- 
lation— to  the  dense  and  crowded  towns  and  cities,  where 
temptation  unvails  all  her  allurements  and  seductions,  and 
where  religious  principle  is  most  sorely  and  severely  tried. 

I  shall  commence,  therefore,  with  that  best  evidence  we 
possess,  namely,  the  number  of  illeg-itimate  births,  as  com- 
pared with  the  legitimate,  in  the  great  capitals  of  Europe. 
Almost  every  country  has  statistical  tables  of  the  yearly 
amount  of  births,  distinguishing  the  legitimate  from  the  ille- 
gitimate, and  the  numbers  I  shall  here  adduce,  shall  be  those 

o* 


34  MORAL   RESULTS 

of  the  respective  governmental  returns.  The  sliade  of  a  suspi- 
cion can  not  attach  to  these. 

And  fii'st,  for  Protestant  Londox — the  city  of  the  whole 
world  in  which  there  is  the  wealthiest  aristocracy,  and  the 
largest  amount  of  gentry — where  there  is  more  commerce, 
more  wealth,  a  larger  population,  and  greater  temptations  in 
number,  and  amount,  and  variety,  than  in  any  other  capital 
in  the  universe,  and  where,  therefore,  one  might  fairly  expect 
the  largest  proportinate  amount  of  immorality. 

The  Registrar-General  is  required  to  lay  before  Parhament 
and  the  sovereign  a  statement  in  detail  every  year  of  the 
number  of  births  throughout  England  and  Wales ;  specifying 
what  proportion  of  such  births  may  have  been  illegitimate. 

The  return  for  1851,  states  that  the  total  number  of  births 
in  the  London  division,  with  a  population  of  2,362,236,  was 
78,300,  and  of  these  : 

The  legitimate  were    .        .        .     75,09T 
And  the  illegitimate    .         .         .       3,203 

This  shows  the  illegitimate  births  to  be  about  four  per 
cent.,  that  is,  that  in  every  hundred  births  there  are,  omitting 
fractions,  ninety-six  legitimate  children  and  four  illegitimate. 
In  other  words,  every  twenty-fifth  child  is  illegitimate. 

The  return  of  the  Registrar-General  for  the  preceding  year 
gives  a  similar  state  of  things.  The  total  number  of  births, 
omitting  the  still-born,  was  72,612,  and  of  these: 

The  legitimate  were     .         .         .     69, 784 
And  the  illegitimate     .         .         .       2,828 

This  shows  the  illegitimate  births,  omitting  fractions,  to  be 
FOUR  per  cent. ;  and  this  seems  the  true  number  for  London. 

And  next  for  Roman  Catholic  Paris.  M.  Guerry,  in  his 
able  w^ork,  ^^ Statlstique  Morale  de  la  France^''  states  :  "  The 
illegitimate  births  in  the  city  of  Paris  are  to  the  legitimate  as 
one  to  l.yVo*  ^6  reckon  therefore  in  Paris,  one  illegitimate 
birth  to  a  little  less  than  two  legitimate  ones.    This  proper- 


OF   THE    ROMISH    SYSTEM.  SS* 

tion  which,  it  is  true,  some  departments  of  the  interior  in- 
crease, leads  to  the  conchision,  that  in  the  capital  more  than 
one  third  part  of  the  native  population  consists  of  bastards" 
This,  which  was  published  twenty  years  ago,  presents  a  picture 
of  immorahty  and  vice  for  which  one  is  scarcely  prepared. 
It  fixes  the  illegitimate  births  at  more  than  thirty-five  per  cent. 
And  now  for  the  present  day. 

The  Prefects  of  the  several  Prefectures  in  France  are  obliged 
to  register  aU  the  births  of  their  respective  Prefectures,  dis- 
tino-uishiner  between  the  legitimate  and  the  illegitimate.  These 
returns,  as  respects  Paris,  are  published  by  the  Bureau  des 
Longitudes. 

The  returns  for  1850,  give  the  total  number  of  births  at 
Paris  for  that  year  as  29,628,  of  these : 

The  legitimate  were    .        .        .     19,921 
And  the  illegitimate     .        .        .      9,707 

This  shows  the  illegitimate  to  be  about  thirty-three  per 
cent.  In  other  words,  almost  every  third  child  is  illegiti- 
mate ! 

The  returns  for  1851  are  very  similar.  They  give  the  total 
number  of  births  at  32,324,  of  these  : 

The  legitunate  were     .        .        .     21,689 
And  the  illegitimate    .        .        .     10,636 

This  gives  a  result  very  much  the  same  as  that  of  the  pre- 
ceding year.  Almost  every  third  child  born  in  Paris  is  ille- 
gitimate— a  proportion  but  little  better  than  that  which  pre- 
vailed thirty  years  ago ;  so  that  thirty-three  per  cent,  may 
be  set  down  as  the  number  for  Paris. 

The  city  of  Brussels,  essentially  Ptoman  Catholic  as  it  is, 
the  capital  of  the  most  truly  and  sincerely  religious  of  all  the 
Roman  Catholic  nations  of  Europe,  comes  next  in  order.  The 
returns  are  made  to  the  government,  and  are  published  by  the 
Secretary  of  State.*     The  returns  for  the  year  1850,  which 

*  "  Population,  Mouvement  de  TEtat  Civil,  pendant  I'Ann^e  1850, 
Publie  par  lo  Ministre  de  I'lnterieur.     Bruselles,  1851." 


36  MORAL  RESULTS 

are  the  last  publislied,  give  the  total  number  of  births  in 
Brussels  at  5281,  and  of  these : 

The  legitimate  were    .        .        .      3,448 
And  the  illegitimate    .        .        .       1,833 

This  is  significant  of  an  amount  of  vice  still  greater  than 
that  of  Pai-is.  It  is  about  thirty-five  per  cent.  More  than 
one  third  of  the  population  is  illegitimate  ! 

And  yet  even  this,  sad  and  melancholy  as  it  is,  is  better 
than  the  condition  of  Eoman  Catholic  Munich — the  capital 
of  Bavaria.  It  is  the  unhappy  lot  of  that  city,  that,  although 
its  management  is  under  the  influence  of  the  priesthood  of 
Rome,  that  influence  has  been  directed  to  strengthen  the 
priestly  power  in  the  State,  rather  than  to  improve  those  civil 
institutions,  that  throw  diflSculties  in  the  way  of  marriage. 
By  the  returns  last  published,  and  which  contain  those  for  the 
year  1851,*  the  total  number  of  births  in  Munich  was  3464 ; 
and  of  these : 

The  legitimate  were    .        .  1,762 

And  the  illegitimate    .        .        .       1,702 

There  is  here  a  picture  of  vice  and  immorality  for  which 
one  is  scarcely  prepared  in  a  city  professing  itself  Christian, 
and  exclusively  under  the  influence  of  those  institutions  of  the 
Church  of  Rome,  whose  influence  is  supposed  to  be  so  salutary. 
The  illegitimate  births  are  about  forty-eight  per  cent.  Nearly 
one  half  of  the  population  is  illegitimate  ! 

And  next,  we  turn  to  Roman  Catholic  Vienna.  The  re- 
turns from  this  city  give  a  painful  and  distressing  picture  of 
the  gradual  deterioration  of  the  moral  principle.  The  amount 
of  vice  and  immorality  is  steadily  increasing.  In  London  and 
even  in  Paris,  they  exhibit  an  improvement — ^however  slight, 
there  is  an  improvement  upon  the  past,  but   unhappily  it 

*  "  Beitrage  zur  Statistick  des  Konigreichs  Bayern,  Von  Hermann, 
Munchen,  1854." 


OF   THE    ROMISH    SYSTEM. 


31 


is  the  reverse  at  Vienna.     The  total  number  of  births  in  that 
city  in  1841  was  16,682.    Of  these  : 

The  legitimate  were     .        .        .      8,941 
And  the  illegitimate    .        .        .       '7, 741 

Nearly  one  half !  And  as  this  was  worse  than  at  former 
periods,  so  year  by  year  the  frightful  depravity  deepens  and 
blackens,  and  seems  to  threaten  the  overthrow,  as  by  a  deluge 
of  vice,  of  every  appearance  and  pretense  of  morality.  In 
1849,  the  number  of  births  was  19,241  ;  and  of  these  : 

The  legitimate  were    .        .        .       8,881 
And  the  illegitimate    .        .        .     10,360 

The  number  of  illegitimate  births  exceeded  the  legitimate  ! 
This  is  so  revolting  and  monstrous  that  it  may  well  be  deemed 
fabulous  and  beyond  all  credibility  in  a  professedly  Christian 
city.  And  yet  there  is  no  clearer  evidence  of  any  fact  under 
the  sun  than  of  this  fact.  There  is  connected  with  the  Im- 
perial Government  of  Austria  a  department,  called  "  Die  Di- 
rection der  Administrativen  Statistik,"  in  other  words,  an  Im- 
perial Commission  for  collecting  and  publishing  the  statistics 
of  the  empire.  The  tables  of  this  Direction  have  been  pub- 
lished with  the  remarks  of  the  "  Ministerial  Secretar"  in  two 
volumes,  at  Vienna,  in  1852.  I  purchased  them  in  that  city 
in  1853.  These  tables  extend  from  the  year  1830  to  the 
year  1851.  And  the  Government  Secretary  carefully  calcu- 
lates and  gives  the  yearly  averages  of  the  first  nine  years  ;  he 
then  gives  the  averages  of  the  second  nine  years'  period  ;  and 
afterward  the  average  of  the  remaining  three  years.  His  re- 
turns, comparing  the  illegitimate  with  the  whole  number  of 
births  in  Vienna,  are  as  follows,  omitting  the  fractious  : 

The  yearly  average  from  1830  to  1838,  fortt-four  per  cent. 

"  "  "  "       1839  to  1847,  FORTY-EIGHT        " 

"  "  "  "      1848  to  1851,  FIFTY-ONE  " 


•■J 


Such   are  the  returns  in    the  Imperial  offices  at  Vienna. 


38  MORAL   RESULTS 

They  exhibit  a  state  of  society  in  the  Austrian  capital  that 
seems  without  pai-al!el  in  the  whole  world,  except  perhaps,  in 
some  of  her  own  provinces.  More  than  one  half  of  the  popu- 
lation are  illerritimate  ! 

My  present  object,  however,  is  simply  to  state  on  the 
authority  of  the  governmental  returns,  the  facts  as  they  exist 
— to  set  forth  the  moral  state  of  London,  Paris,  Brussells, 
Munich  and  Vienna,  in  order  to  learn  whether  the  restraints 
which  the  Church  of  Rome  imposes  upon  immorality — whether 
the  convents  and  nunneries  and  confessionals  and  other  insti- 
tutions of  that  church  have  so  succeeded  in  those  capitals  in 
lessening  or  suppressing  vice  and  immorality,  as  to  lead  to  the 
conviction  that  they  are  more  effective  than  the  restraints  of 
our  Protestant  and  English  Christianity. 

The  following  concise  summary  will  enable  us  to  form  a 
judgment  upon  this  subject.  It  refers  exclusively  to  capital 
cities. 

The  proportion  of  illegitimate  births  is  : 

In  Roman  Catholic  Paris  thiett-three  per  cent. 

"  "         Brussells  thirty-five        " 

"  "  Munich  forty-eight        " 

"  "         Vienna  fifty-one  " 

In  Protestant  London  four  " 

These  figures  are  astounding.  It  almost  requires  an  efibrt 
to  believe  them.  They  seem  almost  invented  for  the  occasion : 
and  yet  they  are  all  official  and  governmental  returns,  as  cer- 
tain and  authoritative  as  such  records  can  possibly  be. 

Nor  is  it  to  be  supposed  that  this  proportion  is  confined  to ' 
the  capital  cities  of  Europe.  If  the  returns  from  the  depart- 
ments or  counties,  in  which  those  capitals  are  situated,  be  ex- 
amined— as  Middlesex,  and  the  Department  of  the  Seine,  and 
Lower  Austria,  etc.,  it  will  be  found  that  results  somewhat 
similar  are  exhibited.  The  same  remark  applies  to  the  manu- 
facturing cities,  and  to  the  naval  ports  of  the  several  nations. 
K  Birmingham  be  compared  with  Lyons,  or  Sheffield  with 
Liege,  or  Plymouth  with  Ti-ieste,  the  results  have  the  same 
grand  characteristic  in  favor  of  the  moral  state  of  Protestant 


OF   THE   ROMISH   SYSTEM,  39 

Ene:land.  And  all  tending  to  show  that  however  the  mem- 
bers of  the  two  religions  may  seem  on  an  equality  in  the  rural 
districts,  where  they  are  remote  from  temptation ;  yet  in  all 
those  localities  which  are  the  scenes  of  commerce  and  manu- 
facture and  wealth — in  all  those  localities  which  are  the 
haunts  of  temptation,  and  possess  the  elements  of  seduction, 
the  motives  and  restraints  of  Protestant  Christianity  are  incom- 
parably more  effective  than  those  of  the  Church  of  Rome. 

It  would  be  interesting  as  well  as  instructive,  to  compare 
the  state  of  a  given  number  of  cities  in  Protestant  England 
with  a  similar  number  in  Roman  Catholic  countries.  I  am 
not  in  possession  of  the  official  reports  of  the  Prefects  of  the 
various  cities  of  France :  and  I  am  unwilling  to  advance  any 
thing  unless  on  official  and  governmental  records  of  authority. 
And  therefore  I  am  not  in  a  position  to  make  this  comparison 
as  between  the  cities  of  England  and  the  cities  of  France.  I 
much  regret  this ;  but  I  am  in  possession  of  the  govermnental 
returns  of  the  cities  of  Germany,  and  of  those  of  Italy,  and 
shall  exhibit  the  comparison. 

I  take  the  figures  for  England  from  "  The  Report  of  the 
Registrar  General  for  the  year  184Y,"  as  it  contains  all  the 
details  as  to  the  illegitimate  births,  more  fully  than  the  ordin- 
ary abstract.  And  I  take  the  figures  for  Austria  from  the 
ffovernmental  returns  in  "  Die  Statistik  des  Oesterreichischen 
Kaiserstaates,"  as  published  by  the  Ministerial  Secretary  in 
1852.     I  omit  fractions  : 

Protestant  England.  Roman  Catholic  Austria. 


Bristol  and  Clifton  about  4  per 

cent. 

Troppan 

about  26  per 

cent 

Bradford 

8 

11 

Zara 

a 

30 

11 

Birmingham 

6 

(1 

Innspruck 

II 

22 

11 

Brighton 

7 

(1 

Laibach 

:i 

38 

II 

Cheltenham 

7 

<i 

Brunn 

11 

42 

II 

Exeter 

8 

11 

Lintz 

i< 

46 

11 

Liverpool 

6 

11 

Prague 

i< 

.47 

ii 

Manchester  &  Salford 

7 

11 

Lemberg 

II 

47 

II 

Plymouth 

u 

5 

If 

Klagenfort 

II 

56 

II 

Portsea 

t( 

5 

II 

Gratz 

II 

65 

({ 

63  419 


40  MORAL   RESULTS 

The  foregoing  series  represent  fairly  the  various  classes  of 
cities  in  England,  and  those  of  Austria  represent  the  most 
populous  in  that  empire.  The  contrast  between  them  as  to 
the  amoimt  of  illegitimate  births  is  sufficiently  striking.  The 
average  in  England  is  little  more  than  six  per  cent :  that  is, 
in  one  hundred  births,  there  are  nearly  ninety-four  ler/itimate 
children,  and  only  a  little  more  than  six  ilUgitimate,  while  the 
average  in  the  cities  of  Austria  is  about  forty-two  per  cent, 
that  is,  in  each  hundred  births,  there  are  fifty-eight  legitimate 
and  forty-two  illegitimate  children !  On  the  average  of  the 
last  three  years,  Vienna,  Gratz  and  Klagenfort  have  obtained 
the  extraordinary  distinction,  that  the  illegitimate  births  abso- 
lutely exceed  the  number  of  the  legitimate !  The  illegitimate 
are: 

In  Vienna   .        .        .        .    51  per  cent. 
In  Klagenfort      .        .        .56         " 
In  Gratz      ....     65        " 

This  is,  probably,  without  parallel  in  the  world.  And  yet 
in  all  those  cities  the  Church  of  Eome  has  her  most  ample 
development. 

The  cities  of  Italy  do  not  present  on  the  surface  so  striking 
a  contrast,  but  one  of  great  importance  to  our  present  inquiry. 
I  take  the  figures  from  Mittermaier's  collection  of  ItaHan  sta- 
tistics, having  been  collected  by  him  from  the  governmental 
tables  ;  and  also  from  the  work  on  the  statistics  of  the  Austrian 
empire,  so  often  cited  already,  and  which,  of  course,  has  also 
the  statistics  of  Lombardy. 

It  is  impossible,  from  the  very  nature  of  Italian  life,  to 
obtain  any  thing  like  an  accurate  estimate  of  the  illegitimate 
births.  This  arises  from  the  fact  observed  by  all  travelers 
acquainted  with  that  country,  that  the  greatest  amount  of 
immorality  prevails  among  the  married  women — that  it  is,  at 
least,  very  difficult  among  the  unmarried ;  and  the  reason  is 
this :  there  is  a  feeling  very  general  among  the  Italians  that 
young  girls,  arriving  at  a  marriageable  age,  are  unable  to  pre- 
serve their  own  purity,  aud  will,  probably,  fall  unless  watched 


OP   THE   ROMISH   SYSTEM.  41 

and  guarded  witli  the  greatest  vigilance.  It  is  the  vice  of 
Italian  life  to  have  low  and  dishonoring  opinions  of  women,  as 
if  she  was  frail— intensely  frail— so  frail,  that  the  opportunity 
for  sinning  is  too  often  regarded  as  evidence  enough  of  having 
sinned  ;  guilt  is  supposed,  and  honor  lost,  in  every  case  where 
risk  of  either  was  regarded  as  possible ;  so  that  it  is  thought 
that  marriage,  or  a  convent,  or  the  strictest  watchfulness,  is 
the  only  real  protection  for  a  maiden.  Her  own  moral  and 
religious  principle  seems  never  thought  of !  This  watchfulness 
continues  till  marriage,  and  the  society  of  young  men  is  ex- 
cluded till  some  one  is  selected  for  marriage  ;  and  thus  a 
dragon-like  vigilance  over  the  unmarried,  prevents  the  possi- 
bility of  illegitimate  births  ;  while  the  state  of  married  hfe  is 
too  often  such  a  tissue  of  intrigue,  that,  however  illegitimate 
the  births  are  known  to  be,  they  must,  from  the  simple  fact  of 
the  mother's  marriage,  be  registered  as  legitimate.* 

And  yet  it  is  this  very  phase  of  Italian  life,  that  places  in 
its  strongest  relief  the  real  extent  of  immorality.  In  the 
rural  districts,  in  the  village  homes,  in  the  lonely  valleys,  and 
remote  districts,  the  simple  peasantry  are  as  pure  and  virtuous 
as  any  in  Europe.  They  are  removed  far  away  from  the 
haunts  of  temptation.  But  in  the  cities  and  towns  of  Italy, 
where  temptation  exists,  and  where  vigilance  is  necessarily  re- 
laxed, we  find  the  results  the  same  as  in  other  Roman  Catholic 
countries.  I  shall  here  set  down  the  five  capital  cities  of 
Italy,  and  contrast  them  with  five  cities  of  England  in  refer- 
ence to  the  number  of  illegitimate  births.     I  omit  fractions  : 

Protestant  England.  Roman  Catholic  Italy. 


Liverpool 

6  per 

cent. 

Turin 

20  per  cent, 

Bristol  and  Clifton 

4     " 

II 

Milan 

35     "      " 

Plymouth 

5     " 

II 

Venice 

17     "      " 

Brighton 

7     " 

II 

Florence 

20     "       " 

Manchester 

1     " 

11 

Naples 

16     "       " 

29  108 

*  It  is  stated  that  a  prodigious  number  of  illegitimate  births  are  pre- 
vented by  the  priests,  who  learn  the  state  of  the  young  women  in  the 


42  MORAL   RESULTS 

This  is  a  liigli  figure,  considering  the  peculiarities  of  Italian 
life,  by  reason  of  wliicb,  notwithstanding  the  enormous  im- 
morality that  prevails,  there  must  always  be  comparatively  a 
small  amount  of  births  legally  illegitimate.  The  English 
cities  present  an  average  of  six  per  cent,  and  the  Italians  an 
average  of  twenty-one  per  cent.  These  figures  show  that 
the  convents  and  nunneries  and  confessionals  and  sisterhoods, 
and  all  the  other  appliances  of  Rome  for  the  restraint  of  vice, 
have  so  far  proved  unsuccessful,  as  that  they  offer  to  us  no 
inducement  to  encourage  them  in  England. 

But  I  have  said  nothing  of  Rome — the  city  of  the  church  ! 
I  have  not  numbered  it  among  others,  because  I  have  been 
unable  to  procure  any  governmental  or  authoritative  account 
of  its  illegitimate  births,  and  I  am  unwilling  on  so  grave  a 
question,  to  state  any  thing  unless  on  the  most  certain  author- 
ity. Perhaps  it  could  scarcely  be  expected,  that  an  ecclesias- 
tical city  with  a  Pope,  many  cardinals,  twenty-nine  bishops, 
1,280  Priests,  2,092  monks,  1,698  nuns,  and  537  ecclesiasti- 
cal pupils  in  the  year  1852,  as  appears  in  the  census  of  that 
year,  should  publish  a  record  of  illegitimate  births.  At 
least  I  have  failed  to  procure  it,  but  at  the  same  time  we 
might  expect  that  they  might  supply  us  with  some  record  of 
their  virtues,  their  piety,  and  their  charities.  To  this  they 
certainly  have  responded.  They  point  to  the  Foundling  Estab- 
lishments, and  with  a  natural  pride  repeat  the  number  of 
heljiless  little  foundling  children,  saved,  fed,  clothed,  and  edu- 
cated by  the  monks  and  nuns  of  Rome.  In  the  exhibition  of 
such  charity  they  forget  that  it  is  also  an  exhibition  of  the 
vices  of  their  city. 

In  the  Italian  statistics  collected  by  Mittermaier,  we  have 
tbe  number  of  foundling  children  received  into  il  S.  Spirito  il 

confessional,  and  then  use  their  influence  to  effect  a  marriage  before 
the  birth.  It  is  said  that  the  females  of  Italy  are  more  open  and  can- 
did in  confession  than  any  other  women  in  the  world ;  and  certainly 
it  would  be  well,  if  the  priests  never  made  a  worse  use  of  their  inform- 
ation than  to  effect  a  marriage.  Alas  1  the  morals  of  Italian  society 
tell  a  different  tale. 


OF   THE    ROMISH    SYSTEM.  43 

Conservatorio,  and  other  establisliments  for  foundlings.  He 
gives  the  numbers  received  during  a  series  of  ten  years.  The 
total  was  31,689.  And  this  vast  multitude  is  maintained  by 
the  endowments  of  these  establishments,  and  with  the  attend- 
ance of  monks  and  nuns.  This  total,  distributed  through  the 
ten  years,  gives  a  yearly  avarage  of  3,160  foundlings  exposed 
in  the  city  of  Rome  I 

But,  in  order  to  form  a  just  estimate  of  the  wonderful  enor- 
mity of  this,  it  is  necessary  to  bear  in  mind  that  the  average 
population  of  Rome — apart  from  the  monks  and  nuns,  the 
bishops  and  priests,  and  other  ecclesiastics  who  are  to  be 
assumed  to  be  a  non-productive  population,  and  who  in  many 
thousands  are  ever  coming  and  going  from  and  to  every  part 
of  Italy — is  about  130,000  souls.  The  actual  population  is 
sometimes  considerably  more,  and  sometimes  far  less.  In 
1800,  it  was  153,004;  and  in  1813,  it  was  only  117,882. 
And  in  1836  it  rose  again  to  153,6*78.  In  this  last  year,  the 
births  were  2,258  boys,  and  2,115  girls;  being  a  total  of 
4,373  births,  as  appears  by  Bowring's  Report,  as  laid  on  the 
table  in  the  House  of  Commons. 

The  result  therefore  is,  that  while  the  total  number  of  births 
is  4,373,  the  total  number  of  foundlings  is  3,160  !  This  may 
argue  unexampled  benevolence  on  the  part  of  monks  and 
nuns,  in  providing  for  so  many ;  but  it  also  argues  either  a 
monstrous  amount  of  illegitimate  births,  or  at  least  an  unpar- 
alelled  number  of  cruel  and  unnatural  mothers  that  could  thus 
expose  their  new-born  oflspring. 

They  have  a  profane  jest  at  Rome  against  the  English,  and 
other  strangers,  who  can  not  admire  too  much  the  loving  and 
motherly  care  exhibited  by  the  nuns  toward  these  little  out- 
casts. They  say,  that  the  English  and  such  strangers  are  like 
Pharoah's  daughter,  who,  in  her  simplicity,  of^en  admired  the 
loving  and  motherly  care  exhibited  by  his  nurse  to  the  infant 
Moses ! 

But  what,  it  may  be  asked,  becomes  of  all  these  little  ones — 
especially  the  fuundling  girls,  in  after  life  ?  We  read  that  in 
one  year  there  were  forty  children,  out  of  the  3,160  reclaimed 


44  MORAL  RESULTS 

by  their  parents.  It  is  staled  in  Bowring's  Report,  on  the 
authority  of  Morichini,  that  seventy-three  per  cent,  of  these 
foundlings  die  in  these  estabUshments !  This  certainly  dis- 
poses of  a  large  amount  of  these  helpless  little  ones ;  but  still 
it  may  be  asked,  what  becomes  of  the  multitude  that  remains 
in  after-life  ?  This  inquiry  can  only  be  answered  by  authority. 
I  could  not  myself  attempt  it ;  I  shall  therefore  give  it  from 
the  evidence  of  the  Rev.  Francis  S.  Mahoney,  a  Roman 
Cathohc  priest  who  resided  twenty  years  at  Rome,  and  whose 
evidence  was  given  before  the  select  committee  of  the  British 
House  of  Commons,  on  the  Mortmain  Acts.  His  evidence 
win  be  found  appended  to  the  Report  of  the  Committee,  as 
printed  by  order  of  the  House  in  1851. 

He  was  questioned  as  to  the  endowments  existing  at  Rome, 
for  the  purpose  of  giving  small  marriage-portions  to  young 
girls,  to  enable  them  to  marry.     He  says,  page  407  : 

"  In  Rome,  that  form  of  charity  appeared  to  be  the  one 
recommended  to  dying  sinners,  sensuahsts,  and  persons  who 
had  led  a  disreputable  life ;  and  a  great  means  of  repairing 
the  evil  they  had  done  during  life,  in  the  seduction  of  young 
girls,  was  to  endow,  on  their  death-beds,  portions  for  maidens, 
to  enable  them  to  get  honestly  married.  There  was  no  doubt 
a  pious  and  benevolent  notion  presiding  over  this  ;  but  on  in- 
quiring into  the  practical  working  of  the  system,  I  found  it  to 
be  any  thing  but  satisfactory.  Most  of  these  marriages,  as  far 
as  my  inquiry  went  among  the  poorer  classes  of  the  people, 
who  were  principally  benefited  by  the  endowments,  rarely 
turned  out  any  thing  praiseworthy  or  desirable.  The  selection 
of  the  husband  was  rarely  left  either  to  the  maiden,  or  to  the 
family,  or  to  the  parents  of  the  maiden.  The  patronage  of 
these  portions  was  vested  in  the  most  incongruous  way,  either 
in  convents,  or  confraternities  of  laymen,  in  their  corporate 
capacity,  or  in  the  Spanish  embassador  [for  maidens  of  Span- 
ish birth.]  Instead  of  being  a  charity,  the  prevalence  of  these 
portions  was  a  regular  nuisance  in  the  social  system,  and  to 
the  community  generally.  First,  because  a  maiden  who  could 
not  claim  the  patronage,  through  the  tortuous  ways  in  which 


OF   THE    KOMISH    SYSTEM.  45 

that  favoritism  was  to  be  obtained,  had  no  chance  at  all,  and 
she  was  laid  on  the  shelf ;  while  an  intriguing  and  forward 
person,  and  every  way  undeserving,  obtained  through  various 
objectionable  tricks,  the  preference  either  of  those  confrater- 
nities, or  of  those  convents,  or  those  parties,  and  they  ap- 
peared of  course  in  the  market  as  rivals  of  those  who  were 
only  virtuous  and  deserving  parties.  But  there  were  other 
evils,  still  more  revolting,  which  were  these  :  The  parties 
having  the  patronage  of  the  portions^  making  a  very  nefarious 
use  of  the  influence  it  gave  them  over  the  minds  of  the  candi- 
dates for  matrimony  ;  the  consequences  being  notoriously  re- 
marked among  the  lower  orders,  and  any  thing  but  satisfactory 
to  lovers  of  decency,'''' 

A  strange  account  this,  of  the  convents  and  confraternities ; 
that  monks  of  convents  and  friars  of  confraternities  should 
make  this  revolting  use  of  their  patronage  ! 
-  He  adds  a  little  further : 

"  The  idea  of  preventing  a  girl  going  into  a  nunnery  is  con- 
sidered shameful.  Therefore  it  is  in  vain  to  say  that  the  en- 
dowments is  to  favor  marriage,  because  it  would  be  scouted  as 
never  being  intended  to  operate  against  entrance  into  a  nun- 
nery ;  and  in  point  of  fact  most  of  the  Roman  nunneries  do 
receive  their  recruits  through  the  medium  of  those  endow- 
ments intended  for  matrimony ;  because  all  those  girls  who 
choose  nunneries,  are  entitled  to  dower  in  preference  to  those 
who  merely  ask  it  to  marry  !" 

In  such  a  state  of  things,  where  the  monks  of  the  convents 
and  the  friars  of  the  confraternities  make  such  a  revolting 
use  of  their  patronage,  and  then  place  the  girls  in  nunneries, 
there  can  be  no  surprise  that  while  births  are  4,373,  the 
foundlings  are  3,160  a  year. 

All  this  process  of  argument,  however,  is  open  in  some 
measure  to  the  objection  that  it  is  scarcely  fair  to  compare 
England  with  such  remote  and  diiferently-circumstanced  coun- 
tries as  Austria  or  Italy ;  and  the  truest  and  fairest  mode  of 
testing  the  efficacy  of  Romanism  on  one  hand,  and  of  Protest- 
antism on  the  other,  in  restraining  vice  and  immorality,  would 


46  MORAL   RESULTS 

be  by  comparing  two  bordering  countries — two  countries  pro- 
fessing the  ditferent  religions — and  so  circumstanced  as  to  be 
the  same  in  climate  and  in  race.  England  and  Italy  are  too 
widely  different  in  every  thing  to  be  fitly  compared,  and  there- 
fore the  question  should  be  tested  on  such  neighboring  coun- 
tries as  Austria  and  Prussia ;  as  having  the  same  climate  and 
the  same  race,  and  even  speaking  the  same  language  ;  the 
former  being  Romanist  and  the  latter  Protestant. 

This  objection  is  entitled  to  considerable  weight,  and  the 
suggestion  that  the  question  should  be  tested  by  the  moral 
conditions  of  Austria  and  Prussia,  is  fair  and  reasonable. 

The  yearly  average  of  illegitimate  births  in  Roman  Catho- 
lic Vienna,  as  already  seen,  is  51  i^er  cent. 

The  yearly  average  of  illegitimate  births  in  Protestant 
Berlin,  is  18  per  cent. 

This  is  a  difference  sufficiently  marked  to  decide  the 
question,  at  least  so  far  as  the  respective  capitals  are  con- 
cerned. 

But  it  may  be  brought  to  a  fuller  and  larger  test  by  com- 
paring, not  cities  selected  here  and  there  from  the  two  coun- 
tries, but  the  ten  largest  and  most  populous  cities  of  both. 
The  results  are  as  follows,  omittino;  fractions  : 


I  Roman  Catholic  Austria. 

In  Protestant  Prussia. 

Vienna 

51 

per  cent. 

Berlin 

18 

per  cent. 

Prague 

47 

11 

Breslau 

26 

II 

Linz 

46 

i( 

Cologne 

10 

u 

Milan 

32 

K 

Konigsburg 

28 

« 

Klagenfort 

56 

II 

Dantzic 

20 

« 

Gratz 

65 

It 

Magdeburg 

11 

(( 

Lembach 

4t 

<l 

Aix-la-Cliapelle 

)    4 

11 

Laibach 

38 

l( 

Stettin 

13 

(1 

Zara 

30 

II 

Posen 

16 

l( 

Brun 

42 

II 

Potsdam 

12 

It 

■  454  158 

If  then  the  question  before  us  be,  as  to  the  efficacy  of  the 
restraints  of  Romanism  on  one  hand,  or  of  those  of  Protest- 


OF    THE    ROMISH    SYSTEM.  47 

antism  on  the  other,  in  restraining  immorality  and  vice,  and 
if  this  question  is  to  be  decided  by  a  comparison  of  Roman 
Catholic  Austria,  with  Protestant  Prussia ;  two  countries  in- 
habited by  the  same  race,  and  speaking  the  same  language, 
and  situated  in  adjoining  districts,  the  decision  must  be  gov- 
erned by  the  fact,  that  taking  the  ten  most  populous  cities  of 
Austria,  and  the  ten  most  populous  cities  of  Prussia  :* 

The  result  in  Eoman  Catholic  Austria  is  fortt-five  per  cent. 
And  in  Protestant  Prussia  sixteen  " 

These  results  must  be  left  to  speak  for  themselves. 

But  this  process  of  illustration  may  be  carried  further.  It 
is  often  asserted  that  the  Protestant  countries,  as  Norway, 
Sweden,  Saxony,  Hanover,  Wurtemburg,  are  equally  demoral- 
ized, if  not  actually  worse,  than  the  Roman  Catholic  countries 
I  have  not  one  word  to  ofler  in  defense  or  extenuation  of  them. 
All  I  have  to  say  is,  that  if  in  these  there  be  indeed  a  depth 
of  immorality,  there  is  in  the  Roman  Catholic  countries  a 
depth  that  is  lower  still.  I  boldly  say,  that  if  any  man  name 
the  worst  of  all  the,  Protestant  countries,  I  care  not  which,  I 
will  name  a  Roman  Catholic  country  that  is  still  worse. 

Let  Protestant  Norway  be  named;  its  population  in  1835 
was  1,194,610;  and  the  proportion  of  illegitimate  births  was, 
at  the  last  return,  from  seven  to  eight  per  cent.  Let  Roman 
Catholic  Styria,  a  province  Avith  a  similar  amount  of  popula- 
tion, 1,006,971,  be  set, against  this.  The  illegitimate  births 
are  twenty-four  per  cent.  ! 

Let  Sweden  be  examined,  with  its  Protestant  population  of 
2,983,144,  in  1855.  Its  illegitimate  births  were  about  seven 
per  cent.  And  then  let  Upper  and  Lower  Austria  be  set  be- 
side it,  with  a  Roman  Catholic  population  of  nearly  the  same 
amount,  2,244,363.  Its  illegitimate  births  are  twenty-five 
per  cent. ! 

*  The  figures  respecting  Prussia,  are  taken  from  the  returns,  pub- 
lished by  order  of  the  Government  in  Berlin  only  two  years  ago.  "  Die 
Tabellen,  etc."  are  in  the  library  of  the  British  Museum. 


48 


MORAL   RESULTS 


If  Saxony,  with  its  Protestant  population,  exhibits  so  fright- 
ful a  spectacle  as  that  its  illegitimate  births  are  fourteen  'per 
cent.,  then  let  Carinthia  with  its  Roman  Cathohc  population 
be  set  against  it ;  its  illegitimate  births  are  about  thirty-five 
•per  cent. ! 

If  in  Denmark,  with  its  Protestant  population,  the  illegiti- 
mate births  are  less  than  ten  per  cent,  there  is  the  Province  of 
Saltzberg,  with  its  Roman  Catholic  population,  where  the  ille- 
gitimate births  are  above  twenty-two  per  cent. 

K  Hanover  be  referred  to,  and  among  its  Protestant  popula- 
tion, the  illegitimate  births  are  ten  per  cent.,  then  let  the  Prov- 
ince around  Trieste,  with  its  Roman  Cathohc  population,  be 
remembered;  its  illegitimate  births  are  above  twenty-three 
per  cent. ! 

And,  finally,  let  Wurtemberg  and  Bavaria  be  compared. 
They  are  two  kingdoms  lying  alongside  each  other,  with  this 
only  difference,  that  in  the  former  the  Protestants  are  two 
thirds  and  the  Roman  Catholics  one  third  of  the  population ; 
while  in  the  latter  the  Roman  Catholics  are  three  fourths, 
while  the  Protestants  are  only  one  fourth  of  the  population. 
The  result  is,  that  in  the  former,  where  the  Protestants  are  the 
more  numerous,  the  illegitimate  births  are  about  twelve  per 
cent.  The  illegitimate  were  8,859,  and  the  legitimate  66,579  ; 
while  in  the  latter,  where  the  Roman  Catholics  form  the  large 
majority,  the  illegitimate  births  are  twenty-four  per  cent.,  that 
is,  the  illegitimate  were  30,'729,  and  the  legitimate  118,456. 

In  short,  name  any  Protestant  country  or  any  Protestant 
city  in  Europe,  and  let  its  depth  of  vice  and  immorality  be 
measured  and  named,  and  I  will  name  a  Roman  Catholic 
country  or  city  whose  depths  of  vice  or  immorality  are  lower 
still. 

And  yet  there  is  an  important  element  to  be  considered  in 
all  calculations  as  to  the  amount  of  illegitimacy  in  the  Prot- 
estant districts  of  Germany. 

The  returns  as  to  the  number  of  illegitimate  births  in  Prus- 
sia  and  in  the  lesser  Protestant  States,  must  be  received  with  a 
consideration.    This  consideration  goes  to  distinguishing  be- 


OF   THE    ROMISH    SYSTEM.  49 

tween  the  nominal  and  the  actual  amount.     It  is  this  : — In 
Germany,  as  in  Scotland,  the  Protestant  population  are  Pres- 
byterian, and  have  cast  aside  as  useless  much  that  was  form- 
erly associated   in   their  minds,  with  the  evils   of  episcopal 
courts.   Accordingly,  both  iu  Germany  and  in  Scotland,  it  was 
held  that  marriage  was  purely  a  civil  and  not  a  religious  con- 
tract.    This  public  feeling  became  law  in  Scotland.     A  mar- 
riage-contract, or  acknowledgment  of  m.arriage  in  the  presence 
of  witnesses,  was  held  as  a  valid  marriage  in  law,  and  the  off- 
spring legitimate.     But  in  Germany  there  was  a  difference. 
The  feeling  of  many  of  the  people  was,  and  is,  that  when  the 
parties  are  formally,  and  in  the  presence  of  witnesses,  affianced 
to  each  other,  by  a  formal  act  of  betrothal,  the  marriage  is 
sufficiently  valid ;   and,  accordingly,  many  marriages  go  no 
further.     They  remain  as  they  do  in  Scotland.     But  the  law 
goes  further,  and  demands,  very  rightly,  as  I  think,  further 
formalities,  or  it  will  not  recognize  the  marriage  as  valid. 
The  consequence  of  this  state  of  things  is,  that  many  chil- 
dren are  returned  in  the  police  returns  to  Government  as  ille- 
gitimate ; — the  law  declares  them  to  be  such — though  their 
parents  think  them  to  be  legitimate,  and  they  are  regarded  as 
such  by  the  popular  feeling  of  the  country.     This  state  of 
things  gives  the  appearance  of  a  larger  amount  of  illegitimate 
births  in  the  Protestant  states  than  would  otherwise  be  the 
case.     This,  however,  never  has,  and  indeed  never  can  affect 
the  Roman  Catholic  population,  who  regard  marriage  as  a 
sacrament,  to  be  celebrated  only  by  a  priest ;  but  this  it  is 
which  explains  the  anomaly,  that  while  the  Austrian  Eoman 
Catholics  are  incomparably  less  moral  than  the  Prussian  popu- 
lation, there  is  the  appearance  of  less  immorahty  among  the 
Prussian  Roman  Catholics  than  among  the  Prussian  Protest- 
ants.    It  has  arisen  from  those  peculiar  views  respecting  the 
forms  of  betrothal  and  marriage,  by  which  many  of  the  lower 
orders,  in  the  rural  districts  especially,  regard  the  betrothal, 
solemnly  made  in  the  presence  of  the  families  of  both  parties, 
as  tantamount  to  a  real  marriage. 

And  now,  to  bring  this  paper  to  a  conclusion. 

3 


60  MORAL   RESULTS 

It  has  been  stated  at  the  commencement,  that  the  object  of 
this  paper  was  not  to  charge  the  Church  of  Rome  with  en- 
couraging crime,  and  above  all,  the  crime  of  murder ;  nor  yet 
to  accuse  her  of  teaching  immorality,  or  inculcating  vice ; 
neither  did  it  enter  into  the  writer's  object,  to  draw  any  con- 
trast between  the  moral  or  immoral  character  of  the  Church 
of  Rome  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  Church  of  England  on  the 
other.  The  real  object  was,  to  show  that  whatever  were  the 
restraints  of  the  Church  of  Rome  upon  crime  and  immorality, 
and  whatever  were  the  encouragements  to  struffo-le  ao-ainst 
temptation,  they  are  proved  by  experience  to  be  less  effective 
than  those  which  are  presented  to  us  in  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land. And  yet  more,  the  object  was  to  prove  more  especially, 
that  convents  and  nunneries  and  confessionals  and  sisterhoods 
and  other  Romish  institutions  have  proved  so  inefficacious  for 
restraining  immorality  and  vice  in  those  Roman  Catholic 
countries  where  they  have  been  supported  by  the  government, 
and  where  they  have  been  a  part  of  the  law  of  the  land,  that 
they  afford  no  encouragement  to  the  introduction  of  them  into 
England. 

Whatever  other  inferences  are  deducible  from  the  facts  and 
figures  already  given,  I  leave  to  others. 

I  have  only  to  repeat  what  I  have  said  before,  that  in  judg- 
ing of  the  criminal  calendar  of  a  nation,  and  in  forming  an 
opinion  of  the  morals  of  a  people,  there  are  other  elements  to 
be  taken  into  consideration,  besides  the  religion  or  church  of 
a  country.  The  political  institutions — the  social  laws — the 
municipal  establishments — the  physical  condition — the  amount 
of  wealth,  commerce  and  manufocture — the  degree  and  kind 
of  employments — the  climate  and  local  position — all  these 
are  elements,  more  or  less  important,  as  being  fraught  with 
more  or  less  temptation,  in  arriving  at  a  true  and  just  con- 
clusion. The  religion  of  a  people  will  always  be  the  main 
element  that  governs  and  influences  their  morals  ;  but  at  the 
same  time,  there  is  an  influence  also  exercised  by  those  other 
elements  which  ought  never  to  be  lost  sight  of,  when  we 
would  fonn  a  just  and  equitable  opinion. 


OF   THE    ROMISH    SYSTEM.  •  61 

It  is  true  that  it  has  been  the  unhappy  fate  of  Roman 
Catholic  countries  that  they  have  not  such  valuable  and  ef- 
ficient laws  and  institutions  as  are  found  in  Protestant  coun- 
tries. The  facts  and  figures  given  above  are  demonstrative  of 
this.  At  least  if  we  are  not  to  attribute  the  crime  and  immo- 
rality that  prevails  in  them,  so  much  greater  as  it  is,  than  in 
Protestant  countries ; — if  we  are  not  to  attribute  it  to  some- 
thing most  defective  in  their  religious  system,  we  must  at- 
tribute it  to  their  defective  laws,  constitutions,  and  institu- 
tions. And  then  the  question — and  a  most  awkward  question 
— arises,  as  to  how  we  can  account  for  the  fact,  that  the  laws, 
constitutions  and  institutions  of  Roman  Catholic  countries 
are  more  defective  than  in  Protestant  countries  ?  And  espe- 
cially in  the  Papal  States,  where  the  ci\'il  institutions  and  the 
ecclesiastical  laws  are  all  alike  in  the  same  hands,  and  where 
the  pontiff  can  change  or  reform  them  at  his  pleasure? 
If  the  evil  is  to  be  attributed  to  defective  civil  institution, 
it  is  an  evil  that  it  is  always  in  his  power  to  remedy.  But  it 
is  to  be  feared  that  the  real  seat  of  the  evil  is  in  the  religious 
system. 

The  question  however,  is  one  too  difiicult  for  me  to  solve  to 
the  satisfaction  of  all  men.  I  have  no  difficulty  whatever  in 
my  own  mind.  At  all  events,  it  seems  certain  that  the 
greater  amount  of  crime  and  immorality  in  Roman  Catholic 
countries  must  be  attributed  either  to  the  immediate  action  of 
the  Church  of  Rome,  or  to  her  remote  influence  on  the  laws 
and  institutions  of  every  land  where  she  has  been  established. 

A  deep  conviction  of  this  must  be  my  apology  for  the  pub- 
lication of  these  papers,  earnestly  desiring,  as  a  lover  of  my 
country,  and  as  a  lover  of  morality  and  an  enemy  of  crime,  to 
protect  the  people  of  England  against  the  introduction  of  the 
convents  and  nunneries  and  confessionals  and  sisterhoods  of 
Rome.  They  might  soon  lead  us — I  do  not  say  they  certainly 
would — into  the  same  abyss  of  murders  and  immoralittics 
that  pollute  other  lands  under  the  influence  of  the  Church  of 
Rome. 


EVENINGS  WITH  THE  ROMANISTS. 


1 1  ♦ « ■ 


THE  READING  OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES. 

The  Custom  of  Canting  a  Corpse — ^The  Eight  of  the  People  to  the  Holy  Scriptures— 
The  Objection  arising  from  their  Supposed  Difficulty — Answer  connected  with 
the  Language  of  the  Mass— The  real  Objection  is  their  being  too  plainly  opposed 
to  Rome — This  Illustrated  in  several  Particulars:  as,  Reading  the  Scriptures,  the 
Worship  of  Images,  the  Marriage  of  the  Clergy,  Half-Communion,  Latin  Prayers, 
Worship  of  Saints,  Confession  to  Priests — The  Objection  as  derived  from  Tradi- 
tion— The  Objection  against  Private  Interpretation — The  Duty  as  well  as  Eight 
of  Reading  the  Holy  Scriptures. 

At  a  distance  of  some  five  or  six  miles  from  where  I  resided, 
in  a  remote  parish  in  the  country,  was  the  mansion  of  a  gen- 
tleman of  considerable  property.  His  wife  and  family  were 
much  interested  in  religious  things,  and  he  himself  felt  that 
the  progress  or  improvement  of  the  population,  was  impeded 
by  the  effects  of  Romanism  in  the  peculiar  forms,  which  it  as- 
sumed in  that  part  of  the  country.  This  family  were  very 
kind  and  attentive  to  me,  and  at  their  request  I  visited  them 
once  every  week.  They  arranged  that  there  should  be  a  con- 
gregation composed  of  the  family,  the  domestics,  the  laborers 
and  neighboring  cottagers — such  as  wished  to  attend — assem- 
bled on  the  appointed  evening,  and  that  I  should  meet  them 
and  pray  with  them,  and  address  them  in  somewhat  the  na- 
ture of  a  cottao:e  lecture. 

As  I  was  riding  over  there  one  day,  I  observed  at  the  cross- 
roads that  a  funeral  had  just  stopped.  Being  always  unwill- 
ing to  hurt  the  harmless,  though  superstitious  prejudices  of 


64  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

the  simple  peasantry,  I  at  once  dismounted,  and  quietly  led 
my  horse  by  the  funeral,  stopping  to  exchange  a  few  words  of 
courtesy  with  the  parties.  My  horse  was  nearly  white,  and  as 
there  is  a  superstitious  feeling — connected  I  believe  Mith  the 
vision  of  Death  on  the  pale  horse — as  to  seme  ill-luck  or 
blight  accompanying  the  presence  of  any  one  riding  or  driving 
a  white  horse,  in  a  direction  different  from  that  taken  by  a 
funeral,  I  adopted  this  course  of  ahghting  and  saying  a  few 
kindly  words.  The  action  was  observed,  my  motive  fully  ap- 
preciated, and  most  kindly  taken. 

It  was  one  of  those  scenes  called  canting  the  corpse. 
The  custom  was  a  very  old  one,  and  has  long  since  died  out 
of  the  country,  but  was  still  lingering  in  this  remote  district. 
I  allude  to  more  than  twenty-five  years  ago. 

The  custom  was  this — The  funeral  stopped  on  its  way  to 
the  place  of  burial,  at  every  cross-road,  and  the  coffin  was 
placed  in  the  center  of  the  road.  The  professed  object  of  this 
was  the  holy  association  of  ideas  connected  with  a  cross,  but 
the  apparent  object  seemed  to  be  that  it  Avas  in  such  places 
they  were  sure  to  meet  the  largest  number  of  passengers. 
The  coffin  being  placed  on  the  ground,  the  priest  or  any  act- 
ing for  him,  took  a  hat  in  his  hand  and  stood  beside  it,  and 
asked  of  all  the  friends  of  the  deceased  for  their  "  offerings," 
for  the  soul  of  the  dead.  Tliese  "  offerings"  are  sums  of  money 
collected  for  the  i^riest,  as  payment  to  him  to  engage  him 
to  "  offer"  such  masses  as  shall  relieve  the  sotil  of  the  de- 
parted in  Purgatory.  It  was  usual  for  the  priest  himself  to 
collect  this  money,  sometimes  on  a  plate,  sometimes  in  his 
hat.  The  coffin  was  placed  on  the  cross-roads,  and  as  each 
person  gave  his  "  offering,"  the  priest  called  out  the  amount 
in  a  loud  voice.  The  effect  of  this  was  exceedingly  droll,  for 
as  one  person  gave  his  sixpence  the  priest  pronounced  his 
name  and  the  amount,  "  Paddy  Bryan,  sixpence,  Paddy  Bryan 
sixpence,"  so  continuing,  like  an  auctioneer  at  a  sale,  till  an- 
other "  offering"  was  made,  and  then  it  was  "  James  Riley, 
one  shilling,  James  Riley  one  shilling,"  so  repeating  till  another 
offering  was  given,  and  then  he  cried  "Biily  O'Connor,  one 


HOLY    SCKIPTUIIE.  55 

penny,  Billy  O'Connor  only  one  penny  !"  He  thus  continued 
varyin^^'  the  tone  of  his  voice  so  as  to  flatter  the  pride  of  all 
who  gave  largely,  and  so  as  to  shame  the  faces  of  those  who 
gave  niggardly.  The  appearance  of  the  whole  scene  remind- 
ed one  of  an  auction,  which  in  that  country  was  called  a 
cant,  and  this  gave  rise  to  the  designation  the  custom  received  ; 
it  was  called  canting  the  corpse.  The  manner  and  voice  of 
the  priest,  whose  object  it  was  to  collect  the  largest  ofterings 
— the  faces  of  the  friends  who  were  obliged  to  show  their  re- 
gard to  the  dead  by  the  amount  of  these  "  oflierings" — the  an- 
gry looks  of  some  whose  moderate  donations  were  put  to 
shame,  by  the  contemptuous  tone  of  the  priest  as  he  named 
them — the  laughing  faces  of  a  laughter-lo\ang  people,  at  the 
way  in  which  so  many  were  shamed  unwillingly  out  of  their 
money — all  formed  a  scene  of  the  broadest  comedy.  It  was 
impossible  not  to  be  amused,  even  though  it  took  place  over  a 
cofiin,  that  contained  the  last  relics  of  the  dead.  A  gentle 
compassion  for  the  poor  people  had  been  a  more  suitable  feeling. 
I  rode  on  my  way.  And  the  more  I  reflected  on  this  scene, 
the  more  I  felt  that  it  was  one  of  gross  extortion,  practiced  on 
the  superstitious  simplicity  of  a  superstitious  and  simple  people 
— a  people  who,  more  than  any  other  with  which  I  am  ac- 
quainted, are  nervously  and  jealously  sensitive  of  the  opinions 
of  their  neighbors.  The  priest,  by  the  changing  tones  of  his 
voice,  played  upon  this  feeling,  and  the  people  were  victimized. 
I  felt  this  so  strongly,  that  when  addressing  a  large  assembly 
of  some  hundred  of  Roman  Catholics  and  Protestants  in  the 
evening,  I  narrated  the  scene  and  denounced  the  custom.  I 
-  have  ever  rejoiced  in  knowing  that  the  poor  peasantry  took 
encouragement  from  my  words.  They  were  eagerly  circulated 
and  as  eagerly  v/elcomed  through  the  whole  neighborhood. 
From  that  moment  this  custom  was  discontinued ;  in  its  stead 
a  table  was  placed  outside  the  door  of  a  house  where  there 
was  one  dead,  and  all  who  entered  or  passed  gave  an  "  offer- 
ing" or  otherwise,  as  they  felt  disposed.  This  was  infinitely 
more  decent.  In  that  neighborhood  there  never  was  witnessed 
again  such  a  scene  as  Canting  the  Corpse. 


56  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

While  addressing  tlie  congregation  on  this  occasion,  I  stated 
that  such  scenes  could  never  occur  in  a  Bible-reading  land,  for 
that  they  never  could,  be  submitted  to  by  a  Bible-reading  peo- 
ple. There  was  no  such  place  as  Purgatory ;  it  was  never 
mentioned  in  the  Holy  Scriptures.  There  was  no  such  way 
of  rescuing  the  souls  of  the  dead  as  money-offerings,  there  was 
nothing  hke  it  described  in  the  Holy  Scriptures.  And  I 
stated  broadly  that  it  was  because  the  Holy  Scriptures  did  not 
sanction  such  things,  and  because  if  the  people  read  the  Holy 
Scriptures  they  would  not  submit  to  such  things ;  that  the 
Roman  Catholic  priests  opposed  the  circulation  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures  ;  that  though  they  seemed  to  give  a  variety  of  other 
and  different  reasons,  the  real  truth  was — they  were  opposed 
to  the  Holy  Scriptures,  because  the  Holy  Scriptures  were  op- 
posed to  them. 

It  was  my  custom  to  remain  at  the  house  the  night  of  my 
cottage  lecture,  and  on  this  account  I  learned,  in  the  morn- 
ing that  a  number  of  Roman  Catholics  were  waiting  to  speak 
with  me.  I  found  eighteen  or  twenty  men  collected  in  a 
small  apartment,  where  several  members  of  the  family  with 
myself  met  them.  They  had  brought  with  them  a  spokes- 
man, a  young  and  clever  man,  who  had  a  great  reputation  in 
the  neighborhood  as  a  sort  of  conti'oversial  champion  of  the 
Church  of  Rome.  There  was  some  desultory  conversation  on 
the  canting  of  the  corpse,  and  on  the  cottage  lecture  of  the 
preceding  evening,  and  I  soon  perceived  that  our  conversation 
might  now  be  usefully  turned  to  the  right  of  the  people  to 
read  the  Holy  Scriptures  for  themselves — the  subject  more 
than  all  else  controverted  in  the  country  at  that  period.  The 
Protestant  clergy  pressed  and  exhorted  the  people  to  exercise 
their  right  to  read  and  judge  for  themselves.  The  Roman 
Catholic  priesthood  denied  the  right  of  the  laity  to  read  them, 
and  denounced  from  their  altars  all  who  did  so. 

I  tm'ned  from  the  young  spokesman  and  addressed  one  of 
the  party  whose  friends  had  emigrated  to  America,  and  from 
whom  he  Avas  daily  expecting  letters  and  remittances,  with  a 
view  to  his  following  them — "  You  are  now  expecting  letters,' 


HOLY    SCRIPTURES.  5*7 

I  said, "  letters  giving  account  of  the  far-off  land — the  land  be- 
yond the  ocean — the  land  to  which  they  have  emigrated 
before  you.  These  letters  will  inform  you  of  all  the  difficul- 
ties you  have  to  undergo,  the  dangers  you  have  to  avoid,  the 
duties  you  have  to  perform.  These  letters,  too,  will  tell  you 
of  the  success  and  of  the  prosperity  that  may  be  hoped  for  in 
that  distant  land  ;  and  will,  perhaps,  communicate  the  means 
by  which  you  will  be  enabled  to  reach  that  land  in  safety,  and 
be  again  united  with  your  friends  who  have  gone  before  you. 
Now,  let  us  suppose  that  these  letters  have  arrived — that  you 
have  asked  for  them  at  the  post-office — that  the  post-master 
refuses  to  give  them  to  you — that  in  consequence  you  assert 
your  right  to  letters  which  are  written  to  you,  and  intended  to 
be  read  by  you — that  he  refuses  still,  saying  that  it  was  far 
better  not  to  give  them  to  you,  for  that  you  were  an  ignorant 
and  unlearned  person — that  you  might  mistake  the  meaning 
of  the  letters,  and  perhaps,  might  use  the  money  they  con- 
tained to  your  own  destruction — that  therefore  he  thought  it 
best  to  keep  the  letters  and  their  contents  to  himself,  and  that 
you  must  be  content  with  just  as  much  of  them  as  he  thought 
fit  to  communicate."  I  asked  the  man  how,  in  such  a  case,  he 
would  be  disposed  to  act. 

He  seemed  to  me,  by  the  expression  of  his  eye,  to  see  the 
real  drift  of  my  question,  and  answered  that  he  would  make 
the  post-master  give  him  the  letters — that  they  were  -written 
to  him — that  he  had  a  right  to  them — that  they  were  for  his 
information,  and  that  have  them  he  would. 

"  But,"  I  said,  "  when  he  told  you  that  you  were  ignorant 
and  unlearned,  and  might  mistake  or  misunderstand  them, 
how  would  you  answer  him  ?" 

He  replied  that  he  would  try  them  at  all  events — that 
when  he  got  the  letters  he  would  read  them,  and  do  his  best 
to  understand  them,  and  get  others  to  help  him  to  understand 
them — but  that  the  letters  he  would  have,  and  would  let  no 
man  keep  them  from  him. 

"  This,"  I  then  said,  "  is  precisely  the  case  with  the  Holy 
Scriptures     they  are,  as  we  all  know,  the  Word  of  God  ;  they 


58  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

are  written  by  His  Holy  Spirit  for  our  instruction  and  inform- 
ation respecting  the  land  of  promise,  the  heavenly  land  to 
which  we  all  are  traveliug.  We  are  here  'strangers  and  pil- 
grims,' emigrants  looking  forward  to  another  world,  not  in- 
deed beyond  the  ocean,  but  beyond  the  grave ;  and  the  Iloly 
Scriptures  are  like  your  expected  letters,  written  to  warn  us 
of  the  temptations  and  sins  which  endanger  the  way — to  en- 
courage us  by  the  promises  and  hopes  connected  with  faith 
and  holiness — and  to  tell  us  of  all  the  blessedness  and  holiness 
and  happiness  of  heaven.  Now  my  question  is — How  ought 
you  to  act  when  any  man,  under  any  jiretense  whatever,  en- 
deavors to  keep  these  Holy  Scriptures  from  you,  which 
were  wi'itten  for  you,  and  to  which  you  have  as  much 
right  as  you  have  to  the  light  of  the  sun  or  the  air  of 
heaven  ?" 

The  young  spokesman  here  stopped  the  other,  and  answered 
for  him,  saying,  that  the  Holy  Scriptures  were  a  hard  book, 
and  very  difBcult  to  be  understood — that  they  puzzled  the 
greatest  and  most  learned  divines  of  all  the  churches — that 
they  were  in  consequence  misunderstood  and  perverted  to 
great  evil— that  simple  and  unlearned  men  as  they  were,  be- 
ing farmers  and  peasants  and  laboring  men,  could  not  under- 
stand them,  and  might  interpret  them  wrongly — that  the 
Holy  Scriptures  were  intended  for  the  church  and  not  for  the 
people,  and  therefore,  they  belonged  to  the  clergy,  who  were 
learned  and  holy  men,  and  not  to  the  laity  who  were  ignorant 
and  unlearned. 

And  how,  I  asked  him,  would  you  answer  the  children 
in  school,  who  said  the  alphabet  was  very  hard  to  be  under- 
stood, and  the  rules  of  arithmetic  very  hard  to  be  com- 
prehended, and  the  catechism  very  hard  to  be  remembered, 
and  that  they  all  were  so  hard  that  it  was  better  to  lay 
aside  both  alphabet  and  arithmetic  and  catechism  ?  I  added, 
that  I  would  tell  them  to  read  and  study  them  more  and 
more,  and  then  to  read  and  study  them  again  and  again,  and 
tliat  in  due  time  they  would  find  them  no  longer  hard,  but 


HOLT   SCRIPTURE.  69 

perfectly  easy  to  be  understood.     Now,  how,  I  asked,  would 
you  answer  them  ? 

He  made  no  reply.  Several  present  said,  I  had  myself  given 
the  right  answer,  namely,  to  read  again ;  I  therefore  told  them 
that  if  they  found  the  Scriptures  hard  they  had  only  to  read 
them  again  and  again,  and  in  due  time,  by  God's  blessing,  they 
would  find  them  easy  enough. 

"  And  may  I  ask,"  I  spoke  very  gently,  as  if  changing  the 
subject,  "  in  what  language  does  the  priest  celebrate  the  mass 
in  this  parish  ?" 

He  replied,  "  in  Latin,  of  course.  In  the  Church  of  Rome 
in  every  part  of  the  world,  the  canon  of  the  mass  is  said 
in  Latin.  In  this  parish  there  are  some  parts  of  the  serv- 
ices of  the  church  that  are  sometimes  said  in  English,  and 
sometimes  he  preaches  in  Irish,  but  he  always  says  the  canon 
of  the  mass  in  Latin.  Indeed  it  is  myself  that  assists  him  at 
the  mass." 

He  said  this  with  some  degree  of  self-importance,  as  if  com- 
municating to  me  some-  information  which  I  seemed  to  re- 
quire. It  was  apparent  that  he  did  not  see  my  object  in  the 
question. 

"I  suppose,  then,  I  said,  that  you  know  Latin,  and  that  you 
can  understand  the  Latin  of  the  canon  of  the  mass." 

"  No,"  was  his  reply,  "  none  of  us  in  this  parish  understand 
Latin." 

"  And  yet  you  attend  and  assist  at  the  saying  the  mass,  you 
serve  at  the  mass." 

"  Yes,  to  be  sure,"  was  his  answer.  "  It  is  I  who  always 
serve  mass,"  that  is,  he  acted  in  the  services  of  the  Church  of 
Rome  as  a  clerk  does  in  Protestant  churches. 

I  saw  that  now  I  was  in  the  best  possible  position  for  deal- 
ing with  the  objection  he  had  urged  against  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures being  read  by  the  people.  He  had  not  perceived  the  ob- 
ject of  my  questions  as  to  the  Latin  language. 

I  paused  for  a  few  moments  with  the  view  of  drawing  the 
more  attention  to  my  answer,  and  when  all  seemed  waiting 
for  me,  I  ask-^d  quietly,  whether  I  had  rightly  and  clearly  un- 


60  EVENINGS    WITH   THE    ROMANISTS. 

derstood  the  objection  he  had  before  urged — that  as  the  mass 
of  the  people  were  ignorant,  and  could  not  understand  the 
Holy  Scriptures,  so  they  ought  not  to  read  them  or  listen  to 
them — that  the  fact  of  their  ignorance,  and  their  not  under- 
standing them,  was  adequate  reason  for  their  neither  reading, 
nor  listening  to  them. 

He  assented  to  this  as  the  argument  he  had  urged,  and  on 
which  the  Church  of  Rome  withheld  the  Holy  Scriptures  from 
the  people.  They  Avere  too  unlearned  and  ignorant  to  under- 
stand them. 

I  had  my  answer  prepared.  It  was  one  I  never  knew  to  fail 
in  its  effects  upon  the  masses  of  the  people.  And  I  therefore 
delivered  it  slowly,  that  the  persons  present  might  clearly  un- 
derstand it.  I  said — If  the  fact  that  the  Holy  Scriptures  are 
difficult  to  be  understood,  that  their  language  is  diflScult 
for  an  ignorant  people  to  understand — if  that  fact  be  a  good 
and  adequate  reason  for  their  neither  reading  them,  nor 
listenino;  to  them,  then  that  other  fact — that  most  certain 
fact,  that  the  language  of  the  mass  celebrated  every  day  in 
he  chapels  is  Latin — a  language  not  only  difficult  but  im- 
possible to  be  understood  by  an  ignorant  people,  must  be  a 
good  and  adequate  reason  for  the  jx^ople  neither  attending  nor 
hearing  mass. 

If  a  thunderbolt  had  fallen  in  the  midst  of  us  it  could  not 
have  created  a  greater  sensation  in  its  way,  than  this  simple 
answer.  The  whole  party  was  in  commotion,  some  heard  it 
with  an  expression  of  face  that  seemed  searching  for  some  way 
of  escape.  Some  seemed  to  regard  it  as  a  j^iece  of  uncommon 
and  perplexing  ingenuity.  The  larger  portion  seemed  pleased 
and  even  delighted  with  it,  as  if  it  were  a  blow  that  would 
baffle  all  attempts  at  a  reply. 

I  repeated  it  slowly,  saying — "  Your  priests  tell  you  that  as 
you  can  not  understand  the  Holy  Scriptures,  so  you  ought 
not  to  read  them  or  hear  them.  If  that  mode  of  reasoning  be 
good  and  valid  in  reference  to  the  Holy  Scriptures,  it  is  equally 
good  and  valid  in  reference  to  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass.  As 
you  can  not  understand  the  language  of  the  mass,  being  in 


HOLY   SCRIPTURE.  61 

Latin,  so  you  ought  not  to  attend  it,  or  hear  it.  I  added  that 
I  argued  the  other  way,  namely,  that  if  they  might  attend  mass, 
although  they  did  not  understand  its  language,  so  they  might 
as  reasonably  read  and  hear  the  Holy  Scriptures,  although  per- 
haps they  might  not  understand  them  as  fully  as  desirable. 

There  was  no  mistaking  the  general  effect  of  this  argument 
on  my  hearers.  They  ofi'ered  no  reply,  but  consulted,  appar- 
ently with  a  difference  of  opinion,  to  see  whether  they  could 
not  answer  me. 

After  some  time,  I  asked,  whether  they  had  no  answer  to 
make  to  this  mode  of  putting  the  question.  One  of  them  sug- 
gested to  me,  that  surely  the  Holy  Scriptures  were  very  hard 
to  be  understood  by  poor  and  ignorant  men. 

They  certainly  are  very  easy,  I  replied,  to  be  understood  by 
the  most  poor  and  most  unlearned,  in  every  thing  that  is  ne- 
cessary for  the  salvation  of  the  soul — in  every  thing  that  con- 
cerns you  most  to  know ;  and  as  certainly  there  are  also  some 
things  too  hard  for  even  the  learned ;  and,  yet  not  more  hard 
to  you  than  the  language  of  the  mass.  The  priest  tells  you 
that  you  must  attend  and  hear  mass,  although  you  can  not 
understand  it.  He  ought  also  to  tell  you  that  you  ought  to 
read  and  hear  the  Holy  Scriptures,  even  though  you  think 
them  hard  to  be  understood. 

They  gave  up  the  argument  as  hopeless  ;  even  their  spokes- 
man seemed  puzzled  and  was  silent. 

I  then  said,  that  the  real  reason  for  withholding  the  Holy 
Scriptures  was  widely  different.  They  were  told  that  it  was 
because  they  were  too  hard — too  difficult  to  be  understood.  I 
believed  that  the  real  reason  is,  that  they  are  so  easy — so  plain 
to  be  understood — that  the  language  of  Holy  Scripture,  when 
speaking  of  certain  practices  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  reproving 
and  condemning  them,  is  so  clear  and  intelligible,  that  the 
people  would  no  longer  follow  those  practices  if  they  read  the 
Holy  Scriptures — that  this  language  is  so  plain  and  easy  that 
a  child  may  understand  it,  and  that  for  this  very  cause  the 
Church  of  Rome  prohibits  the  reading  of  'the  Scriptures 

They  seeme  i  perplexed  at  this  statement,  some  among  them 


62  EVENINGS    V.'ITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

had  never  seen  the  Scriptures,  and  therefore  knew  not  whether 
they  were  difficult  or  easy.  They  only  knew  that  they  were 
told  they  ought  not  to  have  them,  simply  because  being  un- 
learned aud  ignorant,  they  could  not  understand  them.  They 
had  been  told  this  so  often  that  they  believed  it,  and  they 
were  greatly  surprised  to  hear  me  say  that  the  true  reason 
they  were  forbidden  to  read  them,  was  that  they  were  so 
clear,  plain,  and  easy  to  be  understood.  They  expressed  their 
surprise  in  very  plain  words,  and  as  I  saw  they  were  disposed 
on  the  whole  to  place  confidence  in  me,  I  stated  that  if  they 
would  let  me  have  a  few  moments  uninterrupted,  I  would 
explain  myself  fully. 

Their  consent  was  given  warmly  and  readily.  Every  one 
seemed  intent  on  hearing. 

I  said  I  would  do  nothing  but  read  a  few  passages  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures.  They  could  judge  for  themselves  whether 
they  were  hard  or  easy.  They  seemed  to  me  very  easy  to  be 
understood,  but  they  were  very  hard  to  be  reconciled  with  the 
Church  of  Rome — very  hard,  indeed,  to  be  explained  accord- 
ing to  the  practices  of  the  Church  of  Rome. 

I  then  read  the  following  passages  to  illustrate  the  right  of 
reading  the  Scriptures : 

"  And  these  words,  which  I  command  thee  this  day,  shall 
be  in  thine  heart :  and  thou  shalt  teach  them  diligently  unto 
thy  children,  and  shalt  talk  of  them  v.-hen*  thou  sittest  in  thine 
house,  and  when  thou  walkest  by  the  way,  and  when  thou 
liest  do\\'n,  and  when  thou  risest  up.  And  thou  shalt  bind 
them  for  a  sign  upon  thine  hand,  and  they  shall  be  as  frontlets 
between  thine  eyes.  And  thou  shalt  write  them  upon  the 
posts  of  thy  house,  and  on  thy  gates." — Deut.  vi,  6-9. 

Thus  they  were  to  be  taught  even  to  the  children. 

"  Moses  wrote  this  law,  and  delivered  it  unto  the  priests  the 
sons  of  Levi,  which  bare  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  the  Lord, 
and  unto  all  the  elders  of  Israel.  And  IMoses  commanded 
them,  saying,  At  the  end  of  every  seven  years  in  the  solemnity 
of  the  year  of  release,  in  the  feast  of  tabernacles,  when  all 
Israel  is  come  to  appear  before  the  Lord  thy  God  in  the  place 


HOLY   SCRIPTURE.  63 

which  he  shall  choose,  thou  shalt  read  this  law  before  all 
Israel  iv  their  hearing.  Gather  the  people  together,  men,  and 
women,  and  children,  and  thy  stranger  that  is  within  thy 
gates,  that  they  may  hear,  and  that  they  may  learn,  and  fear 
the  Lord  your  God,  and  observe  to  do  all  the  words  of  this 
law  ;  and  that  their  children,  which  have  not  known  any  thing, 
may  hear,  and  learn  to  fear  the  Lord  your  God,  as  long  as  ye 
live  in  the  land  whither  ye  go  over  Jordan  to  possess  it." — 
Deut.  xxxi.  9-13. 

This  again  desires  them  to  be  taught  to  the  men,  women, 
and  children,  even  the  very  youngest,  who  had  known  nothing 
else. 

"  Afterward  he  read  all  the  words  of  the  law,  the  blessings 
and  cursings,  according  to  all  that  is  written  in  the  book  of 
the  law.  There  was  not  a  word  of  all  that  Moses  commanded 
which  Joshua  read  not  before  all  the  congregation  of  Israel, 
with  the  women,  and  the  little  ones,  and  the  strangers  that 
were  conversant  among  them." — Joshua  viii.  34,  35. 

These  words  show  that  all,  even  the  women  and  the  little 
children,  were  to  hear  and  learn  the  Word  of  God  : 

"And  all  the  people  gathered  themselves  together  as  one 
man  into  the  street  that  was  before  the  water-gate  ;  and  they 
spake  unto  Ezra  the  scribe,  to  bring  the  book  of  the  law  of 
Moses,  which  the  Lord  had  commanded  to  Israel.  And  Ezra 
the  priest  brought  the  law  before  the  congregation,  both  of 
men  and  women,  and  all  that  could  hear  with  understanding, 
upon  the  first  day  of  the  seventh  month.  And  he  read 
therein  before  the  street  that  was  before  the  water-gate,  from 
the  morning  until  mid-day,  before  the  men  and  women,  and 
those  that  could  understand :  and  the  ears  of  all  the  people 
were  attentive  unto  the  book  of  the  law." — Xehemiah  viii. 
1-3. 

Here  again  we  have  all  the  people,  even  the  women : 

"  And  the  king  went  up  into  the  house  of  the  Lord,  and  all 

the  men  of  Judah,  and  all  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  with 

him,  and  the  priests,  and  the  prophets,  and  all  the  people,  both 

small  and  great :  and  he  read  in  all  their  ears  all  the  words  o^ 


64  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

the  book  of  the  covenant  which  was  found  in  the  house  of  the 
Lord.  And  the  king  stood  by  a  pillar,  and  made  a  covenant 
before  the  Lord,  to  walk  after  the  Lord,  and  to  keep  his  com- 
mandments and  his  testimonies  and  his  statutes,  with  all  their 
heart  and  all  their  soul,  to  perform  the  words  of  this  covenant 
that  were  written  in  this  book  :  and  all  the  people  stood  to 
the  covenant." — 2  Kino-s  xxiii.  2,  3. 

It  is  evident  that  all  the  people  both  small  and  great  were 
here. 

"  The  brethren  immediately  sent  away  Paul  and  Silas  by 
night  unto  Berea :  who  coming  thither  went  into  the  syna- 
gogue of  the  Jews.  These  were  more  noble  than  those  in 
Thessalonica,  in  that  they  received  the  word  with  all  readiness 
of  mind,  and  searched  the  Scriptures  daily,  whether  those 
things  were  so.  Therefore  many  of  them  believed ;  also  of 
honorable  women  which  were  Greeks,  and  of  men,  not  a 
few." — Acts  xvii.  10-12. 

The  Bereans  are  here  praised  for  searching  the  Scriptures, 
and  it  is  clear  that  this  was  done  by  the  women  as  well  as  the 
men. 

"  Continue  thou  in  the  things  which  thou  hast  learned  and 
hast  been  assured  of,  knowing  of  Avhom  thou  hast  learned 
them;  and  that  fi'om  a  child  thou  hast  known  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  which  are  able  to  make  thee  wise  unto  salvation, 
through  faith  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus.  All  scripture  is  given 
by  inspiration  of  God,  and  is  profitable  for  doctrine,  for  re- 
proof, for  correction,  for  instruction  in  righteousness  :  that  the 
man  of  God  may  be  perfect,  thoroughly  furnished  unto  all 
good  works." — 2  Tim.  iii.  14-17. 

Now  here  it  is  evident  that  the  Scriptures  were  intended  by 
God  for  all,  even  for  little  children.  And  there  is  no  reading 
these  passages  without  feeling  that  the  people,  men,  women, 
and  children,  alike  have  a  right  to  learn,  read  and  hear  the 
Holy  Scriptures.  The  priestliood  have  no  more  right  to  de- 
prive them  of  this,  than  to  deprive  them  of  the  light  of  the 
sun  or  the  air  of  heaven  !  And  I  appealed  to  themselves — 
whether  these  Scriptures   are  not  plain  and   easy,  and  clear 


HOLY   SCRIPTURE.  65 

enough  to  be  understood  by  them.  They  are  hard  and  diffi- 
cult— very  hard  and  difficult  indeed,  to  be  explained  by  the 
Church  of  Rome.  But,  I  said,  I  would  give  illustration  on 
another  point — the  use  of  Images  and  Pictures. 

"  Thou  shalt  not  make  unto  thee  any  graven  image,  or  any 
likeness  of  any  thing  that  is  in  heaven  above,  or  that  is  in  the 
earth  beneath,  or  that  is  in  the  water  under  the  earth  :  Thou 
shalt  not  bow  down  thyself  to  them  nor  serve  them." — Exo- 
dus XX.  4,  5. 

"  Take  ye  therefore  good  heed  unto  yourselves  ;  for  ye  saw 
no  manner  of  similitude  on  the  day  that  the  Lord  spake  unto 
you  in  Horeb  out  of  the  midst  of  the  fire :  lest  ye  corrupt 
yourselves,  and  make  you  a  graven  image,  the  similitude  of 
any  figure,  the  likeness  of  male  or  female,  the  likeness  of 
any  beast  that  is  on  the  earth,  the  likeness  of  any  winged 
fowl  that  flieth  in  the  air,  the  hkeness  of  any  thing  that 
creepeth  on  the  ground,  the  likeness  of  any  fish  that  is  in  the 
waters  beneath  the  earth." — ^Deut.  iv,  15-18. 

"  Take  heed  unto  yourselves,  lest  ye  forget  the  covenant 
of  the  Lord  your  God,  Avhich  he  made  with  you,  and  make 
you  a  graven  image,  or  the  likeness  of  any  thing,  which  the 
Lord  thy  God  hath  forbidden  thee.  For  the  Lord  thy  God  is 
a  consuming  fire,  even  a  jealous  God.  When  thou  shalt  beget 
children,  and  children's  children,  and  ye  shall  have  remained 
long  in  the  land,  and  shall  corrupt  yourselves,  and  make  a 
graven  image,  or  the  likeness  of  any  thing,  and  shall  do  evil 
in  the  sight  of  the  Lord  thy  God,  to  provoke  him  to  anger ; 
I  call  heaven  and  earth  to  witness  against  you  this  day,  that 
ye  shall  soon  utterly  perish  from  off  the  land  whereunto  ye 
go  over  Jordan  to  possess  it ;  ye  shall  not  prolong  your  days 
upon  it,  but  shall  utterly  be  destroyed." — Deut.  iv.  23-26. 

"  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  Learn  not  the  way  of  the  heathen, 
and  be  not  dismayed  at  the  signs  of  heaven ;  for  the  heathen 
are  dismayed  at  them.  For  the  customs  of  the  people  are 
vain :  for  one  cutteth  a  tree  out  of  the  forest,  the  work  of  the 
hands  of  the  workmen,  with  the  ax.  They  deck  it  with  sil- 
ver and  with  gold  ;  they  fasten  it  with  nails  and  with  hammers 


66  EVENINGS    WITH   THE    ROMANISTS. 

that  it  move  not.  They  are  upright  as  the  palm-tree,  but 
speak  not :  they  must  needs  be  borne,  because  they  can  not 
go.  Be  not  afraid  of  them ;  for  they  can  not  do  evil,  neither 
also  is  it  in  them  to  do  good." — Jer.  x.  2-5. 

These  texts  seem  plain,  and  easy,  and  clear.  They  alto- 
gether forbid,  as  a  heathenish  custom,  the  practice  of  having 
images  and  pictures  to  bow  before,  or  kneel  before,  or  pray 
before  ;  and  this  is  precisely  tlie  view  which  Protestants  take 
of  this  practice.  The  Church  of  Rome  has  multitudes  of 
these  in  their  houses  and  in  their  churches.  And  she  finds 
it  difficult  and  hard,  and  impossible  to  explain  these  Scriptures, 
which  are  so  plainly  against  the  use  of  images  and  pictures, 
so  as  to  reconcile  them  with  her  practices,  and  she  is  therefore 
afraid  that  her  people  may  see  that  these  Scriptures  condemn 
her  practice  ;  and  so  she  tells  them  that  they  ought  not  to 
read  them,  because  that  they  are  too  hard  to  be  understood, 
whereas  the  real  reason  evidently  is  that  they  are  too  easily 
understood  for  her. 

But  I  will  give  another  instance.  It  relates  to  the  marriage 
of  the  clergy,  which  is  forbidden  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  as 
sacrilege. 

"This  is  a  true  saying.  If  a  man  desire  the  office  of  a 
bishop,  he  desireth  a  good  work.  A  bishop  then  must  be 
blameless,  the  husband  of  one  wife,  vigilant,  sober,  of  good 
behavior  given  to  hospitality,  apt  to  teach  :  Not  given  to 
wine,  no  striker,  not  gi'eedy  of  filthy  lucre  ;  but  patient,  not 
a  brawler,  not  covetous ;  One  that  ruleth  well  his  own  house, 
having  his  children  in  subjection  with  all  gravity ;  For  if  a 
man  know  not  how  to  rule  his  own  house,  how  shall  he  take 
care  of  the  church  of  God?" — 1  Tim.  iii.  1. 

There  can  be  no  mistake  as  to  this,  for  the  wife  and  chil- 
dren of  the  bishop  are  mentioned.     Again — 

"  Likewise  must  the  deacons  be  grave,  not  double-tongued, 
not  given  to  much  wine,  not  greedy  of  filthy  lucre;  Holding 
the  mystery  of  the  faith  in  a  pure  conscience.  And  let  these 
also  first  be  proved  ;  then  let  them  use  the  office  of  a  deacon, 
being  found  blameless.     Even  so  must  their  v'ives  be  grave, 


HOLY    SCRIPTURE.  67 

not  slanderers,  sober,  faithful  in  all  things.  Let  the  deacons 
be  the  husbands  of  one  wife,  ruling  their  children  and  their 
own  houses  well." — 1  Tim.  iii.  8. 

The  wives  and  children  of  the  deacons  are  here  mentioned, 
aarain : 

"  For  this  cause  left  I  thes  in  Crete,  that  thou  shouldest  set 
in  order  the  things  that  are  wanting,  and  ordain  elders  in 
every  city,  as  I  had  appointed  thee  :  If  any  be  blameless,  the 
husband  of  one  wife,  having  faithful  children,  not  accused  of 
riot  or  unruly.  For  a  bishop  must  be  blameless,  as  the  stew- 
ard of  God."— Titus  i.  5. 

Now  here  are  texts  of  which  no  man  can  possibly  say  they 
are  hard  or  difficult  in  themselves.  They  certainly  are  hard 
and  difficult  to  explain  in  the  Church  of-  Rome,  because  she 
forbids  the  marriage  of  her  clergy,  denouncing  it  as  a  sacrilege, 
and  declarinar  it  to  be  wantonness.  It  is  difficult  for  her 
therefore  to  reconcile  these  Scriptures  with  her  doctrine  and 
practice,  but  it  is  apparent  to  every  one,  that  the  texts  are 
plain,  and  clear  enough  in  themselves,  and  it  is  because  they 
are  too  plain  and  clear  for  her,  that  she  gives  them  the  bad 
name  of  being  hard  and  difficult.  She  fears  the  laity  reading  them. 

But  here  is  another  illustration :  it  is  on  the  subject  of  re- 
fusing the  cup  of  wine  to  the  laity. 

"  As  they  were  eating,  Jesus  took  breaiJ,  and  blessed  it,  and 
brake  it,  and  gave  it  to  the  disciples,  and  said,  Take,  eat ;  this 
is  my  body.  And  he  took  the  cup,  and  gave  thanks,  and 
gave  it  to  them,  saying.  Drink  ye  all  of  it ;  For  this  is  my 
blood  of  the  new  testament,  which  is  shed  for  many  for  the 
remission  of  sins." — Matt.  xxvi.  26-28. 

The  cup  was  given  by  our  Lord,  and  commanded  to  be  given 
and  taken  by  all  alike,  as  well  as  the  bread. 

^gain — "As  they  did  eat,  Jesus  took  bread,  and  blessed, 
and  brake  it,  and  gave  to  them,  and  said.  Take,  eat ;  this  is 
my  body. '  And  he  took  the  cup,  and  when  he  had  given 
thanks,  he  save  it  to  them  :  and  they  all  drank  of  it.  And 
he  said  unto  them.  This  is  my  blood  of  the  new  testament, 
which  is  shed  for  many."— Mark,  xiv.  22-24. 


68  EVENINGS    WITH    THE   ROMANISTS. 

Again — "  He  took  bread,  and  gave  tlianks,  and  brake  it,  and 
gave  unto  them,  saying,  This  is  my  body  wbich  is  given  for 
you :  this  do  in  remembrance  of  me.  Likewise  also  the  cup 
after  supper,  saying.  This  cup  is  the  new  testament  in  my  blood, 
which  is  shed  for  you." — Luke  xxii.  19,  20. 

Again — "  The  Lord  Jesus  took  bread  :  And  when  he  had 
given  thanks,  he  brake  it  and  said.  Take,  eat ;  this  is  my  body, 
which  is  broken  for  you ;  this  do  in  remembrance  of  me. 
After  the  same  manner  also  he  took  the  cup,  when  he  had 
supped,  saying.  This  cup  is  the  new  testament  in  my  blood : 
this  do  ye,  as  oft  as  ye  drink  it,  in  remembrance  of  me." — 1 
Cor.  xi.  23-25. 

Here  are  Scriptures  so  plain  that  "  he  who  runs  may  read." 
In  every  one  of  them  the  cup  of  wine  is  as  prominent  as  the 
bread.  And  when  the  Roman  Catholic  priests  say  that  these 
are  difficult,  it  must  be  that  they  are  difficult  to  reconcile  with 
their  system ;  they  can  not  mean  that  they  are  difficult  in 
themselves,  for  every  one  can  see  that  they  are  clear  and  easy 
to  be  understood ;  and  that  the  most  simple-minded  and  un- 
learned may  comprehend  them.  The  suspicion  may  indeed 
be  entertained,  that  they  are  felt  to  be  somewhat  too  clear  and 
easy  to  suit  the  Church  of  Rome  ;  which,  in  direct  opposition 
to  the  Scriptures,  refuses  all  communion  in  the  cup. 

I  will  give  you  another  instance ;  it  shall  be  of  the  Latin 
prayers,  of  the  sacrifices  of  the  mass.  They  are  always  read, 
as  already  intimated,  by  the  priests  in  Latin. 

"  Even  things  without  life  giving  sound,  whether  pipe  or 
harp,  except  they  give  a  distinction  in  the  sounds,  how  shall 
it  be  known  what  is  piped  or  harped  ?  For  if  the  trumpet 
give  an  uncertain  sound,  who  shall  prepare  himself  to  the  bat- 
tle ?  So  likewise  you,  except  ye  utter  by  the  tongue  words 
easy  to  be  understood,  how  shall  it  be  known  what  is  spoken  I 
for  ye  shall  speak  into  the  air.  There  are,  it  may  be,  so  many 
kinds  of  voices  in  the  world,  and  none  of  them  are  without 
signification.  Therefore,  if  I  know  not  the  meaning  of  the 
voice,  I  shall  be  unto  him  that  speaketh  a  Barbarian  ;  and  he 
that  speaketh  shall  be  a  Barbarian  unto  me." — 1  Cor.  xiv.  7-1 1> 


HOLY   SCRIPTURE.  69 

"  If  I  pray  in  an  unknown  tongue,  ray  spirit  prayeth  ;  but 
my  understanding  is  unfruitful.  What  is  it  then  ?  I  will 
pray  with  the  spirit,  and  I  will  pray  with  the  understanding 
also  :  I  will  sing  with  the  spirit,  and  I  will  sing  with  the  un- 
derstanding also.  Else,  when  thou  shalt  bless  with  the  spirit, 
how  shall  he  that  occupieth  the  room  of  the  unlearned,  say 
Amen  at  thy  giv'lng  of  thanks  ?  seeing  he  understandeth  not  what 
thou  sayest.  For  thou  verily  givest  thanks  well,  but  the  other 
is  not  edified.  I  thank  my  God,  I  speak  with  tongues  more 
than  ye  all.  Yet  in  the  church  I  had  rather  speak  five  words 
with  my  understanding,  that  by  my  voice  I  might  teach  others 
also,  than  ten  thousand  words  in  an  unknown  tongue." — 1 
Cor.  xiv.  14-19. 

"  If  therefore  the  Avhole  church  be  come  together  into  one 
place,  and  all  speak  with  tongues,  and  there  come  in  those 
that  are  unlearned  or  unbelievers,  will  they  not  say  that  ye 
are  mad  ?  But  if  all  prophesy,  and  there  come  in  one  that 
believeth  not,  or  one  unlearned,  he  is  convinced  of  all,  he  is 
judged  of  all ;  And  thus  are  the  secrets  of  his  heart  made 
manifest ;  and  so,  falling  down  on  his  face,  he  will  worship 
God,  and  report  that  God  is  in  you  of  a  truth." — 1  Cor.  xiv. 
23-25. 

You  yourselves,  I  said,  can  say  whether  these  Scriptures  are 
hard  and  difficult  to  be  understood ;  they  seem  to  me  so  plain 
and  easy  that  a  child  might  understand  them.  And  when  the 
priests  tell  you  that  they  are  too  hard  to  be  understood  by  you, 
it  really  looks  as  if  the  true  reason  was  that  they  thought  them 
too  i^lain  and  easy. 

But  we  can  go  further.  On  the  subject  of  prayers  to  saints 
and  angels,  the  Holy  Scriptures  seem  equally  decisive. 

"  As  Peter  was  coming  in,  Cornelius  met  him,  and  fell  down 
at  his  feet,  and  worshiped  him.  But  Peter  took  him  up,  say- 
ing. Stand  up ;  I  myself  also  am  a  man." — Acts  x.  25,  26. 

"  When  the  people  saw  what  Paul  had  done,  they  lift  up 
their  voices,  saying  in  the  speech  of  Lycaonia,  The  gods  are 
come  down  to  us  in  the  likeness  of  men.  And  they  called 
Barnabas,  Jupiter ;  and  Paul,  Mercurius,  because  he  was  the 


VO  EVENINGS    WITH   THE    ROMANISTS. 

chief  speaker.  Then  the  priest  of  Jupiter,  wLicli  was  before 
their  city,  brought  oxen  and  garlands  unto  the  gates,  and 
would  have  done  sacrifice  with  the  people.  Which  when  the 
apostles,  Barnabas  and  Paul,  heard  of,  they  rent  their  clothes, 
and  ran  in  among  the  people,  crying  out,  and  saying.  Sirs, 
why  do  ye  these  things  ?  We  also  are  men  of  like  passions 
with  you,  and  preach  unto  you,  that  ye  should  turn  from 
these  vanities,  unto  the  living  God,  which  made  heaven  and 
earth,  and  the  sea,  and  all  things  that  are  therein." — Acts  xiv. 
11-15. 

"  And  I  fell  at  his  feet  to  worship  him.  And  he  said  unto 
me.  See  thou  do  it  not :  I  am  thy  fellow-servant,  and  of  thy 
brethren  that  have  the  testimony  of  Jesus  ;  worship  God : 
for  the  testimony  of  Jesus  is  the  spirit  of  prophesy." — Rev. 
xix.  10. 

"I  John  saw  these  things,  and  heard  them.  And  when  I 
had  heard  and  seen,  I  fell  down  to  worship  before  the  feet  of 
the  angel  which  showed  me  these  things.  Then  said  he  unto 
me,  See  thou  do  it  not :  for  I  am  thy  fellow-servant,  and  of 
thy  brethren  the  prophets,  and  of  them  which  keej)  the  sayings 
of  this  book :  worship  God." — Rev.  xxii.  8,  9. 

"  Let  no  man  beguile  you  of  your  reward,  in  a  voluntary 
humility  and  worshiping  of  angels,  intruding  into  those  things 
which  he  hath  not  seen,  vainly  pufied  up  by  his  fieshly  mind, 
and  not  holding  the  Head." — Col.  ii.  18,  19. 

And  are  these  hard  and  difficult  ?  Are  they  not  easy  and 
plain  in  themselves,  as  showing  that  neither  saints  nor  angels 
are  to  be  worshiped  ;  and  that  worship  is  to  be  given  to  God 
alone  ?  But,  considering  the  practice  of  the  Church  of  Rome, 
we  can  not  be  surprised  that  she  forbids  her  members  to  read 
such  Scriptures,  not  indeed  as  is  pretended,  lest  you  should 
find  them  too  hard  and  difficult,  but  because  she  feels  they  are 
inconveniently  plain  and  easy  for  her  system. 

And  now,  once  more,  and  I  have  done  ;  I  shall  read  some 
passages  on  the  subject  of  Confession,  The  Roman  Catholics 
confess  to  the  priests.  The  Protestants  confess  to  God.  Let 
us  see  what  the  Holy  Scriptures  say : 


HOLY    SCTvIPTURE.  7l 

"  And  Joshua  said  unto  Achan,  My  son,  give,  I  pray  thee, 
glory  to  the  Lord  God  of  Israel,  and  make  Confession  unto 
Him  ;  and  tell  me  now  M'hat  thou  hast  done  ;  hide  it  not 
from  me." — Joshua  vii.  19. 

The  Confession  is  to  God,  and  not  to  the  priest. 

"  And  Hezekiah  spake  comfortably  unto  all  the  Levites 
that  taught  the  good  knowledge  of  the  Lord  :  and  they  did 
eat  throughout  the  feast  seven  days,  otFering  peace-ofterings, 
and  making  Confession  to  the  Lord  God  of  their  fathers." — 
2  Chron.  xxx.  22. 

"  Ezra  the  Priest  stood  up,  and  said  unto  them,  Ye  have 
transgressed,  and  have  taken  strange  wives,  to  increase  the 
trespass  of  Israel.  Now  therefore  make  Confession  unto  the 
Lord  God  of  your  fathers,  and  do  his  pleasure." — Ezra  x. 
10,  11. 

"  I  acknowledged  my  sin  unto  thee,  and  mine  iniquity  have 
I  not  hid.  I  said,  I  will  confess  my  transgressions  unto  the 
Lord  ;  and  thou  forgavest  the  iniquity  of  my  sin.  Selah." — 
Psalm  xxxii.  5. 

"  I  prayed  unto  the  Lord  my  God,  and  made  my  Confession, 
and  said,  O  Lord,  the  great  and  dreadful  God,  keeping  the 
covenant  and  mercy  to  them  that  love  Ilim,  and  to  them  that 
keep  His  commandments ;  we  have  sinned  and  have  commit- 
ted iniquity." — Dan.  ix.  4,  5. 

And  now,  I  asked,  are  not  all  these  sufficiently  plain  and 
easy  in  themselves  ?  They  describe  Confession  as  being  made 
to  God,  as  it  is  among  Protestants  ;  and  not  to  the  pi'iests,  as 
is  the  practice  of  Romanists.  And  surely  if  the  priests  assert, 
that  these  Scriptures  are  too  hard  and  difficult  to  be  under- 
stood ;  and  that,  therefore,  you  ought  not  to  read  them  ;  it 
may  well  create  the  suspicion  that  they  do  not  wish  you  to 
read  them,  lest  you  should  find  them  too  plain  and  easy. 

And  now,  I  said  in  conclusion,  I  felt  that  I  could  appeal 
to  themselves ;  I  had  read  to  them  many  passages  of  Holy 
Scripture  on  several  subjects,  and  I  had  observed  their  feel- 
ings as  they  heard  them.  It  was  impossible  not  to  see,  that 
they  understood  every  one  of  them,  and  that  they  applied 


V2  EVENINGS   WITH   THE    ROMANISTS. 

every  one  of  them  to  the  practices  and  doctrines  of  the  Church 
of  Rome,  and  that  they  felt  these  Holy  Scriptures  to  be 
plainly  and  clearly  against  her ;  I  therefore  could  appeal  to 
every  one  of  them,  whether  these  Scriptures  are  too  hard 
and  difficult  to  understand,  or  whether  it  is  not  that  they 
are  so  easy  and  plain  that  the  priests  fear  the  reading  of  them, 
and  the  discovering  through  them  the  impositions  practiced 
upon  the  people. 

During  the  whole  time  I  was  reading  those  several  groups 
of  texts,  and  applying  them  without  comment  to  certain  prac- 
tices of  the  Church  of  Rome — letting  each  group  speak,  as  it 
were,  for  itself — the  attention  and  interest  of  every  one  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  hearers  was  extreme.  Their  steady  gaze — their 
listening  attitude — their  evident  surprise — their  mutual  glance 
as  they  applied  the  several  texts — their  palpable,  and  grow- 
ing, and  deepening  conviction  that  the  Holy  Scriptures  were 
opposed  to  the  Church  of  Rome,  was  one  of  the  most  striking 
scenes  ever  witnessed  of  its  kind.  The  sudden  exclamation 
of  surprise — the  speaking  glance — the  inquiring  looks,  all  told 
a  powerful  impression  of  some  kind.  I  felt  that  this  simple 
grouping  of  so  many  texts  on  each  point,  and  letting  them 
speak  for  themselves  without  comment  on  my  part,  gave  in- 
tense satisfaction.  There  could  be  no  mistaking  the  impres- 
sion. It  seemed  to  them  as  if  it  was  God  in  His  word,  and 
not  I,  a  Protestant  minister,  who  was  appealing  to  them.  And 
the  work  was  done.  It  was  a  realizing  the  fact,  which  an 
apostle  mentions,  they  "  received  it  not  as  the  word  of  man, 
but  as  it  is  in  truth,  the  Word  of  God." 

Some  desultory  conversation  followed.  It  was  universally 
admitted  by  them,  that  these  Scriptures  were  plain,  clear,  and 
easy  enough — that  they  were,  without  any  doubt,  contrary  to 
what  they  had  been  taught  by  their  clergy — that  they  could 
now  see  clearly  enough  the  reason  they  were  not  allowed  to 
read  the  Holy  Scriptures — that  they  would  for  the  future, 
whatsoever  might  be  said  to  the  contraiy,  read  them  for  them- 
selves. Even  the  person  who  accompanied  them,  in  order  to 
vindicate  the  Church  of  Rome,  seemed  thoroughly  silenced. 


HOLY    SCRIPTUiM!:.  13 

He  did  not  say  a  word.     And  it  was  some  time  before  he 
could  take  courage  to  offer  an  objection. 

When  lie  did  speak  again,  it  was  in  a  subdued  and  hum- 
bled tone.  He  seemed  to  have  lost  confidence,  either  from 
the  feelitig  visible  among  his  co-religionists,  or  from  the  diflS- 
culty  of  his  position.  "  But,"  at  last,  he  said,  "  the  Protestants 
made  the  Scriptures  every  thing,  as  if  all  their  religion  was 
there,  and  not  in  tradition.  The  Roman  Catholics  on  the 
other  hand  had  many  things  of  their  religion  in  tradition — in 
the  tradition  of  the  church."  He  then  went  on  to  explain 
the  theory  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  Our  blessed  Lord  and 
Saviour  was  two  or  three  years  with  His  holy  apostles — ^had 
told  and  taught  them,  during  that  long  period,  many  things 
that  are  not  wi'itten  in  the  gospels,  and  these  things,  of  which 
some  were  doctrines,  and  some  were  practices,  have  never  been 
written  in  the  Holy  Scriptures — that  indeed  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures were  not  large  enough  to  contain  them  all ;  that  these 
doctrines  and  practices  were  taught  by  the  Holy  Apostles,  by 
word  of  mouth,  to  the  holy  bishops  and  clergy  that  came 
after  Him  ;  that  they  handed  them  down  by  word  of  mouth 
to  those  that  succeeded  them,  and  thus  some  doctrines  and 
practices  have  been  handed  down  in  the  church  to  the  present 
day ;  and  these  are  the  traditions  of  the  church,  the  oral 
teaching  of  the  church.  Now,  he  continued,  these  traditions 
are  to  be  held,  as  the  Council  of  Trent  says,  in  equal  venera- 
tion with  the  Holy  Scriptures.  These  traditions  are  in  the 
Church  of  Rome,  which  is  infallible,  as  being  founded  by  St. 
Peter,  infallibly  preserved  by  her  from  loss  or  corruption  or 
falsification,  and  all  Christians  are  bound  to  believe  and  ob- 
serve them  as  much  as  the  Holy  Scriptures.  When,  therefore, 
he  said,  in  conclusion,  you  refer  to  the  Scriptures  and  appeal 
to  them,  we  will  refer  to  tradition  and  appeal  to  it. 

I  asked  him,  when  he  concluded,  to  tell  me  any  one  doctrine 
or  practice  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  which  was  derived  from 
tradition — which  was  derived  from  tradition  alone,  and  was 
not  to  be  found  in  the  Holy  Scripture  ? 

He  replied  at  once — transubstantiation,  the  holy  sacrifice 

4 


74  EVENINGS    WITH   THE    ROMANISTS. 

of  the  mass,  purgatory,  prayers  for  the  dead,  the  worship  of 
the  blessed  virgin — and  there  were  many  others. 

"  Then  you  acknowledge,"  I  asked,  "  that  these  doctrines 
are  not  contained  in  the  written  Word  of  God  ?"  And  turn- 
ing to  all  present,  I  called  them  all  to  witness  the  admission, 
that  these  things  were  not  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  were 
only  traditions. 

It  was  immediately  exclaimed  by  several  that  he  had  often 
before  been  endeavoring  to  prove  them  to  them,  by  texts 
from  the  Scriptures ;  and  that  for  their  part  they  would  not 
believe  any  thing  that  could  not  be  proved  by  the  Word  of 
God. 

He  was  somewhat  disconcerted  at  this,  but  said  that  he 
could  prove  them  by  the  Scriptures,  but  that  the  Church  of 
Rome  held  them,  not  because  they  were  in  the  Scriptures,  but 
because  they  were  in  tradition — that  the  true  rule  of  faith 
was,  not  Scripture  alone,  nor  tradition  alone,  but  both  to- 
gether,— both  Tradition  and  Scripture  together.  In  some 
books,  he  said,  it  was  described  as  the  oral  or  unwritten  word, 
together  with  the  written  word,  so  that  the  true  rule  of  faith, 
in  the  church,  was  the  written  and  the  unwritten  word  to- 
gether. And  by  this  means  it  is  that  the  true  doctrines  are 
partly  in  the  one,  and  partly  in  the  other.  And  so  transub- 
stantiation,  and  the  mass,  and  purgatory,  and  the  worship  of 
the  virgin  are  partly  in  the  Scriptures,  and  partly  in  Tradition 
— the  written  and  unwritten  word. 

"  I  suppose,  then,"  I  asked,  "  that  you  hold  with  your 
Church,  that  both  Tradition  and  Scripture — both  the  written 
and  unwritten  word,  as  you  call  it,  are  from  the  same  God, 
and  consequently  must  agree  exactly,  and  can  never  contra- 
dict each  other." 

"  Certainly,"  he  responded,  emphatically. 

"  Then  of  course,"  I  said,  "  you  hold,  that  if,  in  comparing 
the  two,  we  find  any  thing  contrary,  the  one  to  the  other,  we 
must  reject  one  of  the  two  ?" 

"  Of  course,"  was  his  reply. 

"  If,  then,"  I  asked,  "  any  of  the  doctrines  or  practices, 


HOLY    SCRItrURE.  75 

which  the  Church  of  Rome  professes  to  derive  from  Tradition, 
or  the  unwritten  word,  should  be  found  contrary  to  the  Scrip- 
tures, as  the  written  word,  there  would  then  be  a  contradic- 
tion, and  which  would  you  reject  ?" 

There  was  much  hesitation  here  in  his  manner.  Our  hear- 
ers observed  it,  and  had  evidently  made  up  their  minds  as  to 
the  answer  they  Avould  make,  several  of  them  exclaiming 
aloud,  that  they  would  hold  to  the  Scriptures.  I  repeated 
the  question,  asking  which,  in  case  of  a  contradiction,  he  was 
to  receive,  and  which  reject  ? 

His  answer  was,  that  there  was  no  contradiction  between 
the  Church  of  Rome  and  the  Scriptures — that  all  the  doc- 
trines and  practices  could  be  proved  in  the  Scriptures — and 
he  then  boldly  and  confidently  challenged  me  to  name  one 
that  was  contrary  to  the  Scriptures,  and  that  he  was  prepared 
to  meet  me. 

I  named — the  use  of  the  Latin  language,  an  unknown  lan- 
guage, in  the  service  of  the  mass  ;  adding  that  it  was  clearly 
contrary  to  the  commands  of  the  Apostle  in  the  very  Scrip- 
tures already  read.  I  then  read  again  the  passages  I  had  be- 
fore cited  from  1  Cor.  xiv. 

He  was  perfectly  silent.  The  persons  present  looked  sig- 
nificantly at  each  other. 

I  then  named — the  depriving  of  the  laity  of  the  cup  of  wine 
at  the  administration  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  And  I  read,  as 
before,  the  several  accounts  of  the  institution  in  the  gospels. 

He  was  still  perfectly  silent.  The  efiect  of  this  silence  was 
very  great,  but  very  natural  upon  all  present.  ' 

The  conversation  then  became  general ;  it  was  taken  up  by  ^ 
the  persons  present,  speaking  one  to  the  other,  on  various 
points  of  the  subject.  I  did  not  interfere,  as  I  perceived  every 
thing  was  tending  in  the  right  direction — all  tending  to  shake 
the  confidence  of  the  Roman  Catholics  present  in  their  church, 
and  to  transfer  it  to  the  Holy  Scriptures. 

After  some  time,"  I  addressed  them  generally,  and  said  that 
.the  Church  of  Rome  held  practically  two  rules  of  faith.  One 
was  Tradition,  or  the  unwritten  word,  the  other  was  the  Holy 


76  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

Scripture,  or  the  written  word.  It  was  perfectly  clear  to  the 
common  sense  of  every  one,  that  these  two,  supposed  as  they 
are,  to  come  from  the  same  God,  can  not  possibly  contradict 
each  other,  but  must  necessarily  agree,  in  every  way.  It  is 
always,  therefore,  in  our  power  to  try  every  tradition,  profess- 
ing to  be  divine,  by  comparing  it  with  Holy  Scripture ;  and 
if  it  be  found  contrary  to  the  Holy  Scriptures,  it  is  contrary 
to  the  written  word  of  God  ;  contrary  to  an  admitted  portion 
of  the  rule  of  faith,  and  therefore  could  not  have  come  from 
God.  It  is  not  a  true  tradition,  it  is  not  a  divine  tradition. 
It  must  necessarily  be  only  a  pretended  tradition.  It  is  be- 
lieved in  the  Roman  Church,  as  ranch  as  in  the  Protestant 
Church,  that  the  Holy  Scriptures  are  the  written  word  of 
God.  If,  therefore,  we  find  any  thing  taught  under  the  name 
of  a  tradition,  we  have  only  to  compare  it  with  the  Holy 
Scripture,  the  undoubted  Word  of  God,  and  accept  it,  if  it 
agrees  with  the  Scriptures,  and  reject  it  if  it  disagrees.  This 
is  our  best  and  simplest  course,  instead  of  holding  disputa- 
tions about  the  importance,  or  the  truth  of  traditionary 
things,  or  perplexing  ourselves  with  subtleties  about  rules  of 
faith. 

He  then  said  that  that  was  private  judgment — interpreting 
the  Scriptures  according  to  our  jirivate  judgment,  and  not 
according  to  the  interpretation  of  the  Church ;  now  the 
blessed  St,  Peter,  the  founder  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  and 
the  Rock  on  which  the  Lord  built  His  church,  has  said  that 
we  are  not  to  put  our  private  interpretations  on  the  ScriptiU'es, 
for  that  they  are  too  hard  for  us  to  understand. 

I  asked  him  to  read  the  place  where  the  Apostle  said  that 
there  was  to  be  no  private  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures. 

He  opened  the  well-known  2:)assage  in  2  Peter,  i,  19,  and 
read,  "  We  have  also  a  more  sure  word  of  prophecy," 

I  interrupted  him,  with  the  request  to  mark  the  word 
"  prophecy,"  saying,  the  Apostle's  words  were,  "  We  have 
also  a  more  sure  word  of  prophecy,"  That  particular  word 
was  important. 

He  then  read  on,  "  We  have  also  a  more  sure  word  of 


HOLY    SCRIPTURE.  77 

prophecy ;  whereimto  ye  do  well  that  ye  take  heed,  as  unto 
a  lis^ht  that  shineth  in  a  dark  place,  until  the  day  dawn,  and 
the  day  star  arise  in  your  hearts ;  knowing  this  first,  that  no 
prophecy  of  the  Scripture  is  of  any  private  interpretation.  For 
the  prophecy  came  not  in  old  time  by  the  ■will  of  man  ;  but 
holy  men  of  God  spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy 
Ghost."  There  he  added,  it  is  said  that  no  Scripture  is  to  be 
jOTvately  interpreted. 

No,  I  replied,  he  does  not  say  that  no  Scri23ture,  but  that 
no  Prophecy  in  the  Scripture  is  of  any  private  interpretation, 
meaning  thereby  that  the  prophets  were  inspired  by  the  Holy 
Ghost  to  deliver  certain  prophecies — that  these  prophecies 
were  not  of  their  own  impulse,  or  their  own  interpretation — 
that  they  should  be  interpreted  as  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  in- 
spired them,  designed.  This  all  refers  to  the  prophecies,  and 
the  application  or  interpretation  of  the  prophecies;  and  has 
no  reference  to  the  Scriptures  in  general — has  no  reference  to 
the  commandments  of  God,  or  the  invitations  of  the  Gospel,  or 
the  loving  words  of  Jesus  Christ,  Every  man  must  read  the 
Holy  Scriptures  for  himself — must  remember  that  they  are  the 
words  of  God — that  God  who  will  judge  him  in  the  great 
day  ;  and  who  will,  therefore,  judge  him  for  any  willful,  selfish, 
perverse  undeistanding  of  his  w^ord — must  read  them  in  faith 
and  prayer,  humbly,  reverently,  prayerfully  looking  for  the 
teaching  of  the  Holy  Ghost ,who  inspired  them.  Every  man 
is  bound  to  do  it,  hke  the  Bereans  :  "  These  were  more  noble 
than  those  in  Thessalonica,  in  that  they  received  the  word 
with  all  readiness  of  mind,  and  searched  the  scriptures  daily, 
whether  those  things  were  so," — Acts  xvii.  11.  It  was  the 
Apostle  Paul  who  had  preached  to  them — an  inspired  Apostle, 
one  who  spake  as  he  was  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  yet 
even  his  words  were  not  taken  for  granted  without  examina- 
tion. The  Bereans  heard  him,  listened  to  him,  remembered 
him,  and  then  searched  the  Scriptures  to  ascertain  whether  his 
preaching  agreed  with  the  Scriptures.  Now  this  is  all  we  ask 
for  any  man,  and  this  is  what  we  understand  by  the  right  to 
search  ti  3  Scriptures,  and  the  right  of  private  judgment.     It 


78  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

is  that  roverently,  and  humbly,  and  prayerfully,  we  may  now 
do  what  the  Bereans  did  before  us,  and  were  divinely  praised 
for  doing — that,  if  they  might  compare  the  words  of  an  Apostle 
with  the  Holy  Scriptures,  so  every  man,  Protestant  and  Roman 
Catholic,  may  now  compare  the  preacbing  of  their  clergy  with 
the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  receive  or  reject  them  according  as 
they  find  them  agreeing  or  disagreeing  with  the  same. 

But,  he  rejoined,  men,  who  are  unlearned  and  ignorant,  are 
not  fit  to  intei-pret  the  Holy  Scriptures,  They  are  too  hard  to 
be  understood,  and  if  they  are  allowed  to  interpret  them 
according  to  their  own  judgment,  they  will  draw  from  them 
every  sort  of  opinion  ;  there  will  be  as  many  opinions  as  there 
are  persons. 

I  reminded  him  that  this  objection  had  been  discussed 
before — that  the  language  of  an  English  Bible  was  not  so  hard 
as  the  Latin  of  the  Mass — that  when  his  children  did  not  learn 
their  appointed  tasks,  and  excused  themselves  by  saying  their 
tasks  were  too  hard  for  them,  he  would,  probably  tell  them  to 
read  them  over  again  and  again,  and  yet  again,  and  that  after 
reading  often  they  would  find  them  no  longer  hard  but  easy. 
Many  a  time,  I  said,  when  I  was  young,  and  complained  that 
my  lessons  were  too  hard,  I  was  desired,  not  indeed,  to  throw 
aside  my  books,  but  to  read  more  and  more,  and  again  and 
again,  as  the  means  of  getting  over  the  difficulty.  And  in 
precisely  the  same  way,  I  added,  if  you  find  the  Holy  Scriptures 
hard  to  be  understood,  read  them  again  and  again,  and  yet 
again  in  a  prayerful,  humble,  reverential,  believing  spirit,  and 
in  God's  own  time  you  will  most  certainly  find  them  sufficiently 
easy  in  every  thing  that  is  necessary  for  the  salvation  of  your 
soul. 

Our  little  meeting  soon  after  this  dispersed,  and  I  felt  per- 
fectly easy  as  to  the  general  effect  of  the  conversation.  In  the 
course  of  a  few  following  months,  I  had  many  private  conver- 
sations with  the  young  man,  who  had  acted  as  the  advocate 
of  Rome  on  this  occasion.  We  went  throuo-h  the  whole  ran^e 
of  the  controversy,  not  in  a  spirit  of  controversy,  but  of 
inquiry,  for  his  mind  was  passing  through  a  great  change. 


HOLY    SCRIPTURE.  79 

Before  the   year  had  expired  he  abandoned  the  Church  of 
Rome. 

He  was  much  influenced  by  the  language  in  St.  Mark  viii. 
1-13.  It  strongly  dwelt  upon  his  mind,  that  our  Lord  and 
his  disciples  evidently  did  not  keep  or  observe  these  traditions 
— that  he  defended  his  disciples  in  rejecting  them — that  he 
declared  that  these  traditions  had  the  effect  of  setting  aside 
the  Word  of  God — and,  finally,  that  the  Jews  rejected  the 
Holy  Scriptures,  that  they  might  keep  their  own  traditions. 
In  some  of  our  after-conversations  he  showed  that  he  regarded 
all  this  as  an  illustration  of  the  very  same  system  in  the 
Church  of  Rome,  for  that  the  Jewish  priests  urged  their  tradi- 
tions in  precisely  the  same  way,  and  on  the  same  principles  as 
the  Roman  Priests.  And  more  than  all  else,  he  seemed  influ- 
enced by  his  own  experience  of  the  Scriptures.  They  seemed 
to  stream  in  upon  his  mind  in  rays  of  beautiful  light,  as  he 
expressed  it,  like  the  rays  of  the  sun  streaming  in  through  the 
crimson,  and  green,  and  purple,  and  gold-colored  glass  of  an 
old  church  window.  They  were  not  only  light,  but  beautiful 
light  that  conduced  to  meditation  and  prayer.  And  he  did 
meditate  and  pray,  and  suffered  much,  and  in  the  end  escaped 
his  persecutors  by  emigrating  to  America. 

Note. — The  following  is  the  rule  of  the  Index,  respecting  the  Holy 
Scripture,  constituting  the  law  of  the  Church  of  Rome  respecting  them. 

"  Since  it  is  mauifeet  by  experience,  that  if  Holy  Bibles  in  the  vulgar 
tongue  be  permitted  every  where  without  discrimination,  there  will 
arise  more  evil  than  good,  owing  to  the  rashness  of  men ;  let  the  deci- 
sion of  the  Bishop  or  Inquisitor  be  abided  by  in  the  matter,  so  that  with 
the  advice  of  the  Confessor  or  Parish  Priest,  they  may  grant  the  read- 
ing of  Catholic  editions  of  the  Bible  in  the  vulgar  tongue,  to  those  whom 
they  shall  have  ascertained  to  be  likely  to  derive  no  harm,  but  rather 
an  increase  of  faith  and  piety  from  such  reading,  which  permission  they 
shall  have  in  writing. 

"If  any  one  shall  presume  to  read  or  possess  them  without  such  per- 
mission, he  can  not  receive  the  absolution  of  his  sins;  unless  he  first  gives 
up  the  Bible  to  tlie  Ordinary. 

"  Booksellers,  also,  Avho  shall  sell  Bibles  in  the  vulgar  tongue  to  per- 
sons who  have  not  this  permission,  or  who  shall  give  them  in  any  other 
way,  shall  lose  the  price  of  the  hooks — to  be  appropriated  by  the  Bishop 


80  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

to  charitable  purposes  ;  and  shall  he  subject  to  other  penalties  at  the  will 
of  (he  Bishop,  according  to  the  nature  of  the  offense. 

^^  The  Regular  Clergy  [tliat  is,  the  Clergy  of  the  Monastic  Orders, 
Monks  and  Nuns  alike,  all  being  designated  as  '  regulars']  can  not  read 
them  or  pu7-chase  them,  unless  with  the  permission  of  their  Prelates." 

Such  is  the  letter  of  the  Law  of  the  Church  of  Rome  respecting  the 
H0I7  Scriptures,  drawn  up  by  those  appointed  by  the  Council  of  Trent. 
According  to  its  provisions,  we  see — First,  No  one  can  read  or  purchase 
the  Scriptures,  without  the  written  permission  of  his  Bishop.  Second, 
No  Bookseller  can  sell  or  dispose  of  them  to  other  persons,  without 
being  liable  to  penalties,  at  the  pleasure  of  the  Bishop.  Third,  Even 
the  Monks  and  Nuns  are  prohibited  from  reading  the  Scriptures,  unless 
with  special  permission. 

This  law  is  always  in  force.  And  although  it  speaks  of  Catholic  edi- 
tions, there  is  only  one  such  to  be  found  in  Italy — that  by  Martini, 
which  is  in  twenty-three  volumes !  These,  however,  could  be  bound  in 
four  or  six  substantial  volumes,  sufficiently  cumbrous  and  inconvenient. 

The  price  at  which  it  is  sold  is  absolutely  prohibitive.  I  could  not 
procure  one  at  Rome,  in  IS-IS,  for  less  than  105  francs,  that  is,  pre- 
cisely/oMr  guineas!  The  prohibitive  nature  of  this  price,  may  be  seen 
from  the  fact,  that  four  guineas  are  regarded  as  high  wages  by  the 
year,  for  a  servant-maid,  at  Rome ;  so  that  she  would  have  to  give  a 
whole  year's  wages  for  a  copy  of  the  Scriptures  !  And  a  franc  a  day 
is  the  ordinary  pay,  i.  e.,  two  pauls,  for  the  laboring  man.  Owing  to 
the  number  of  holydays  and  Saints'  days  on  which  he  must  not  work, 
he  has,  on  an  average,  not  more  than  four  days,  i.  e.,  four  francs  a  week 
— and  thus  he  would  have  to  give  six  months'  earnings  to  purchase  a 
copy  of  the  Scriptures  ! 

And  yet  this  is  the  only  one  they  are  permitted  to  read,  even  when 
they  can  have  in  writing  the  permission  of  the  Bishop.  They  must 
first  have  the  recommendation  of  the  Priest.  They  must  then  have 
the  written  permission  of  the  Bishop.  They  must  then  give  Four 
Guineas  for  the  Volume  I     Is  it  possible  to  prohibit  it  more  effectually  ? 


THE   UNITY  OF  THE    CHURCH, 


A  Young  Schoolmaster — The  supposed  want  of  Unity  in  the  Protestant  Churches — 
Wherein  True  Unity  consists — Many  Local  Churches  and  one  Church  of  Christ 
— Division  is  often  a  Sign  of  Life,  and  Unity  of  Deatli — Divisions  in  the  Church 
of  Rome — Similar  to  those  among  Protestants — Matters  of  Faith  and  Discipline 
— The  same  Ohjection  urged  by  Heathens  against  Christianity — Great  Diversities 
in  the  Church  of  Rome — Various  Modes  of  answering  the  Objection  as  to  want 
of  Unity. 


Within  a  few  miles  of  my  parish  was  a  young  man,  who 
kept  a  school  and  found  in  that  way  a  very  respectable  liveli- 
hood. His  character  stood  very  high  as  a  moral,  religious, 
pious  man,  very  sincerely  attached  to  the  Church  of  Rome, 
and  very  observant  of  all  her  ordinances.  He  was,  on  that 
account,  patronized  by  all  the  priests  of  his  church  in  the 
neighborhood,  as  a  fitting  instructor  for  the  children  of  the 
more  respectable  and  wealthy  of  their  congregations,  and  in 
consequence  of  this  he  was  eagerly  sought  by  many,  who  in- 
duced him,  after  his  school  hours  were  over,  to  visit  their 
famiHes,  and  impart  private  instruction  to  their  children.  He 
was  thus  engaged  every  evening  among  the  families  in  the 
surrounding  parishes.   • 

A  private  communication  was  one  day  made  to  me,  to  the 
effect,  that  this  young  man's  mind  had  lately  become  very 
much  impressed  with  religion — that  there  was  an  unusual 
and  intense  earnestness  about  him — that  he  had  undoubtedly 
been  reading  the  Holy  Scriptures — that  he  seemed  drawn  to- 
ward certain  religious  Protestants  with  an  apparent  desire  for 

religious  information — that  he  was  known  to  spend  hours  at 

4* 


82  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

night  upon  his  knees  in  prayer — that  something  seemed  to 
press  upon  his  mind,  for  that  his  lively  spirit  was  gone  and  he 
was  thoughtful  and  moody ;  and  io  fine  it  was  suggested  to  me, 
that  it  would  be  well  to  take  an  opportunity  of  seeing  him^ 
and  drawius:  out  his  mind  on  religion.  This  communication 
was  made  to  me,  with  a  remark  to  the  effect  that  the  young 
man  had  spoken  of  me  with  the  expression  of  a  wish  to  see 
me .  and  that  my  seeking  him  would  be  well-received  bv 
him. 

I  was  considering  how  this  might  best  be  done  two  days 
afterward,  when,  late  one  summer  evening,  as  I  was  sauntering 
along  the  paths  in  the  meadows,  I  observed  him  at  a  little 
distance.  He  saw  me  and  entered  the  house  of  a  respectable 
Protestant  farmer,  pausing  at  the  entrance,  and  looking  toward 
me,  as  if  to  let  me  clearly  see  where  I  could  find  him.  At 
least  I  so  interpreted  his  manner,  and  as  I  well  knew  this  farm- 
er, who  was  a  constant  attendant  at  my  church,  and  was  at 
the  same  time  a  Methodist  of  the  old  kind,  I  entered  the 
house. 

The  farmer  was  one  of  those  simple,  frank,  religious  men 
who  do  every  thing  in  an  open  way.  He  told  me,  in  the 
presence  of  the  young  man,  that  he  had  had,  some  days  be- 
fore, some  conversation  with  him  about  the  salvation  of  his 
soul — about  the  Scriptures — and  about  Popery  and  Antichrist 
— that  he  believed  the  Lord  was  doing  a  work  in  his  heart — 
and  that  he  thought  the  young  man,  like  another  in  the  Gos- 
pel, was  not  far  from  the  kingdom  of  God.  He  then  proposed 
that  we  should  all  kneel  down  together,  and  that  I  should  of- 
fer a  prayer  to  the  Lord  for  his  Holy  Spirit,  and  claim  his 
precious  promise,  that  where  two  or  three  were  assembled  in 
his  name,  there  he  would  be  in  the  midst.  I  felt  that  the 
old  Methodist  counseled  wisely.  We  prayed  together.  When 
we  arose  from  our  knees,  the  good  farmer  said  he  would  with- 
draw, and  he  left  me  with  the  young  man  alone. 

He  was  bathed  in  tears  :  it  was  some  time  before  he  could 
arouse  himself  sufficiently  to  converse  calmly.  As  might  be 
expected,  the  conversation  was  in  no  degree  controversial ;  it 


THE  UNITY  OF  THE  CHURCH.  88 

ran  simply  on  the  convictions  of  sin,  wliich  seemed  to  have 
stricken  to  the  innermost  depths  of  his  soul ;  and  on  the 
doubts  and  difficulties  he  felt  as  to  the  grounds  of  hope  of 
forgiveness.  He  seemed  to  feel  keenly ;  he  was  perfectly 
open,  and  thoroughly  in  earnest.  He  stated  that  his  views  as 
to  sin,  and  his  own  natural  and  habitual  sinfulness,  had  lately 
been  greatly  changed  and  deepened ;  and  that  as  to  the 
means  of  counteracting  this  sinful  tendency  of  his  nature,  he 
found  nothing  satisfactory  in  all  he  had  learned  from  his 
church ;  and  as  to  the  mode  of  securing  the  forgiveness  of  his 
God ;  he  believed  that  all  his  life  long  he  had  been  altogether 
astray.  His  spirit  seemed  thoroughly  crushed  and  broken; 
he  was  looking  for  help  and  found  none.  Our  conversation 
was  intensely  interesting,  but  it  was  in  no  degree  controversial, 
so  far  as  the  Protestant  and  Romish  Churches  were  concerned. 
They  were  never  named  or  alluded  to  by  me,  although,  as  a 
matter  of  course,  I  was  necessitated  to  set  forth  the  great 
truths  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  as  concerning  the  only  true 
means  of  acceptance  with  God ;  and  to  dwell  on  the  undying 
consolations  of  the  Gospel,  and  the  fullness  and  freeness  of  the 
offers  of  Christ.  His  name  at  such  moments  is  a  tower  of 
strength — a  Father  of  mercies — and  a  God  of  all  consolation. 
It  will  readily  be  believed  that  the  interview  was  similar  to 
that  which  is  familiar  to  every  true-hearted  and  earnest  and 
faithAil  minister  of  Christ's  Church  when  dealing  with  newly 
awakened  and  strongly-touched  sinners.  It  was  a  probing 
the  wounds  of  sin  and  then  binding  them  up.  It  was  very 
much  of  the  same  character  as  many  other  interviews  I  have 
had  from  time  to  time  with  such  persons,  brought  up  amid 
the  advantages  and  privileges  of  a  Protestant  land — amid 
the  "  green  pastures  and  still  waters"  of  a  scriptural  Church ; 
but  whose  hearts  had  long  remained  untouched  and  unimpress- 
ed from  above,  and  were  at  last  awakened  to  a  sense  of  eter- 
nal realities,  in  reference  to  which  their  whole  lives  previously 
had  been  nothing  but  a  dream. 

Before  we  separated  he  told  me  in  reply  to  my  inquiries, 
that  he  attended  a  meeting  of  the-  Bible  Society  at  the  neigh- 


84  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

• 

boring  town  some  months  before — that  a  Roman  Catholic 
priest  had  openly  on  the  platform  opposed  the  proceedings — 
that  a  controversy  arose  among  the  speakers  as  to  the  right  of 
the  people  to  read  the  Holy  Scriptures  for  themselves — that 
he  left  the  meeting  with  a  very  strong  desire  to  know  more  of 
the  nature  of  this  volume,  respecting  which  the  dissension 
arose.  He  had  never  before  read  the  Holy  Scriptures ;  he 
now  procured  a  copy,  and  he  stated  that  it  was  in  reading  it 
his  opinions  had  been  modified,  and  his  sense  of  sinfulness 
quickened. 

We  parted  for  that  night,  but  it  was  with  an  arrangement 
to  meet  soon  again  in  the  same  house. 

We  often  met,  and  we  were  interested  and  profited.  Gradu- 
ally error  after  error  was  abandoned.  And  finally,  after  many 
months,  he  forsook  the,Church  of  Rome,  becoming  an  earnest, 
zealous,  meek,  and  faithful  Christian.  He  soon  afterward  left 
that  part  of  the  country,  and  after  a  time  emigrated  to 
America. 

He  often  spoke  to  me  of  the  supposed  unity  of  the  Church 
of  Rome,  and  of  the  difficulty  he  had  felt  respecting  the  Prot- 
estant Churches  on  account  of  their  many  divisions — on  ac- 
count of  their  want  of  that  unity  which  was  one  of  the  notes 
or  marks  of  the  true  church.  He  was  still  a  member  of  the 
Church  of  Rome,  when  he  first  pressed  the  argument  upon 
me ;  and  he  argued  it  with  all  his  power,  for  he  struggled 
step  by  step  before  he  finally  abandoned  her.  He  reminded 
me,  that  in  the  Nicene  Creed  we  are  said  to  believe  in  "  One 
holy,  catholic  and  apostolic  church,"  and  thus  we  are  said  to 
believe  the  true  church  to  be  One,  not  riiany — the  true  and 
spotless  Bride  or  Spouse  of  Jesus  Christ  to  be  One,  not  many 
— that  as  there  was  but  "  One  Lord,  one  Faith,  one  Baptism, 
one  God  and  Father  of  all,"  so  there  was  but  one  church — 
that  as  the  members  of  the  human  frame  may  be  many,  yet 
must  be  in  harmony  with  each  other,  so  the  various  branches 
or  members  of  the  church,  however  many,  must  be  in  perfect 
harmony  together — that  the  language  of  Holy  Scripture 
seeme.',^  to  imply  this ;   constantly  exhorting  Christians  *'  to 


THE  UNITY  OF  THE  CHURCH.  85 

think  the  same  thing,  to  mind  the  same  thing,"  and  "to  be  of 
one  mind" — ^that  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  himself  prayed  five 
times  in  a  single  prayer,  that  his  people  "  might  be  one." — 
And  that  this  unity  seemed  an  essential  of  the  Church  of 
Christ.  He  seemed  to  think  that  there  was  at  least  an  appear- 
ance of  this  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  while  there  were  endless 
divisions — innumerable  sects — in  the  Protestant  Churches. 

This  argument  he  illustrated  on  different  occasions,  by  dif- 
ferent scriptures,  as  of  their  being  but  one  fold  and  one  shep- 
herd— as  to  brethren  being  at  unity  among  themselves — as  to 
a  house  divided  against  itself  being  sure  to  fall,  etc.,  etc. 

In  reply  to  his  difficulties  on  these  points,  urged  as  they 
were  truly  and  sincerely,  and  in  no  partisan  spirit,  I  endeav- 
ored to  impress  on  him  two  or  three  principles  that  seemed  to 
me  greatly  to  elucidate  this  matter. 

In  the  first  place,  I  tried  to  impress  him  with  the  fact  that 
when  our  Lord  spoke  of  the  one  fold  and  the  one  shepherd, 
his  words  contained  an  allusion  to  two  parties — to  the  Jews 
and  to  the  Gentiles. 

And  his  intention  was  to  convey  the  idea,  that  there  were 
not  to  be  two  distinct  churches  for  these  two — that  there  was 
not  to  be  one  Church,  one  Saviour,  and  one  mode  of  sal- 
vation for  the  Jews,  and  another  Church,  another  Saviour,  and 
another  mode  of  salvation  for  the  Gentiles,  but  that  there  was 
to  be  but  one  and  the  same  for  both — that  the  Apostle  Paul 
carries  on  the  same  truth,  namely,  that  as  he  states  in  Eph.  ii.  14 
-16.  "Christ  is  our  peace,  who  hath  made  both  one,  and 
hath  broken  down  fhe  middle  Avail  of  partition  between  us ; 
having  abolished  in  his  flesh,  the  enmity,  even  the  law  of  com- 
mandments contained  in  ordinances  to  make  in  himself  of 
twain  one  new  man,  so  making  peace  ;  and  that  he  might  rec- 
oncile both  unto  God  in  cue  body  by  the  cross,  having  slain 
the  enmity  thereby."  There  were  thus  two  bodies  to  be 
united  into  one  church.  Jews  and  Gentiles  were  not  to 
be  two  but  one  church.  And  this  I  said  was  to  be  the  true 
meaning  of  our  professing  a  belief  "  in  One  Church." 

He  said  frankly  that  he  had  never  seen  it  in  that  light,  and 


86  EVENINGS    WITH   THE    ROMANISTS. 

that  it  was  so  far  satisfactory,  as  it  explains  the  reason  for  its 
constituting  the  article  of  a  creed.  In  fact,  he  added,  in  that 
sense  it  was  an  article  of  faith,  but  in  the  common  view  of  it, 
he  never  could  understand  its  being  ip*erted  in  the  creed. 

In  the  second  place,  I  endeavored  to  convince  him,  that 
there  might  be  a  variety  of  separate,  particular,  national,  or 
local  churches,  which  yet  might  constitute  one  whole  or  uni- 
versal church.  I  illustrated  this  by  referring  him  to  his  Tes- 
tament, where  he  could  read  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  the 
Church  of  Corinth,  the  Church  of  Galatia,  the  Church  of  Ephe- 
sus,  the  Church  of  Phillippi,  the  Church  of  Thessalonica,  the 
seven  Churches  of  Asia,  and  especially  the  Church  of  Jerusa- 
lem. I  said,  that  all  these  churches  seemed  distinct,  and  sep- 
arate, and  perfect  churches — that  at  least  the  Church  of  Rome 
was  not  made  more  of  in  such  lanofuasfe  than  the  Church  of 
Corinth,  or  any  other  of  the  churches  named — that  they  all 
seemed  on  an  equality  as  particular  or  local  churches,  that  of 
Jerusalem  being  the  Mother  of  all.  And  I  argued  that  the 
only  difficulty — if  indeed  it  could  be  called  a  difficulty  at  all 
— was  to  reconcile  this  diversity  with  unity,  in  other  words,  to 
reconcile  this  number  of  churches  with  the  Unity  of  the 
Church  of  Christ ;  but  this  difficulty  is  not  one  of  our  creat- 
ing, it  is  one  on  the  face  of  Holy  Scripture,  and  for  that  cause 
we  are  not  disposed  to  be  much  affected  by  it. 

He  saw  this,  and  said,  it  certainly,  if  a  difficulty  at  all,  was 
a  difficulty  for  which  the  Protestant  principle  or  Potestant 
Reformation  were  not  responsible,  but  he  supposed  that  as  the 
many  branches  of  a  tree  constitute  the  one  tree,  and  the  many 
members  of  the  body  constitute  the  oue  body,  so  the  harmony 
or  union  of  these  several  particular  or  local  churches  may  con- 
stitute them  into  the  one  Church  of  Christ.  He  said  he  could 
well  understand  this,  and  it  was  the  way  in  which  he  had  ar- 
gued the  question  in  his  own  mind  ;  many  persons  forming 
one  family,  many  regiments  forming  one  army,  and  many 
nationalities  constituting  one  people.  He  could  therefore  well 
understand  this;  but  in  the  Church  of  Christ  there  must' be  a 
harmony  of  feeling  and  unity  of  mind.     And  this  was,  as  it 


THE  UNITY  OF  THE  CHURCH.  87 

seemed  to  liim,  the  real  objection  to  the  divisions  in  the  Pro- 
testant Churches. 

This  induced  me  to  lay  before  him  a  further  principle,  as  it 
was  apparent  my  words  were  not  lost  upon  him. 

Let  it  be  always  remembered,  I  said,  that  union  is  not  a 
necessary  sign  of  spiritual  life,  as  disunion  is  not  a  necessary 
evidence  of  spiritual  death.     If  we  enter  a  church  or  chapel, 
and  observe  the  congregation,  we  are  sure  to  find  that  how- 
ever their  hearts  may  be  united,  yet  their  minds,  habits  of 
thought,  and  reflection  create  certain  diversities  and  shades 
of  opinion.     There  may  be  union  on  all  that  is  great  and  im- 
portant, though   there  are   diversities   on   matters   of  lesser 
moment.     Their  very  diversities  of  judgment  are  a  sign  of 
mental  activity  and  of  real  life.     They  are  not  dead.     If  then 
we  enter  the  church-yard,  and  sit  beneath  the  shady  cypress 
and  the  dark  yew,  and  tread  lightly  the  graves  of  the  de- 
parted, there   is   found   no  disunion  and  no  diversity  there. 
There  is  no  collision  of  mind  or  of  feehng.     All  is  peaceful, 
quiet,  calm.     This  very  unity  is  an  evidence  of  the  absence  of 
all  real  life.     They  are   truly  dead,  and  all  the  life  that  is 
there,  is  that  of  the  loathsome  worm  of  the  grave.     And  so  in 
spiritual  things.     There  is  a  union  which  is  a  sign  of  spiritual 
death,  for  it  argues  the  absence  of  all  intelligent  activity  and 
mental  life.     And  there  is  a  division,  which  is  an  evidence  of 
spiritual  life,  for  it  proves  the  existence  of  mental  thought  and 
active  intelligence.     Among  the  mummies  of  Egypt  there  are 
no  reliarious  differences,  for  all  are  dead.    In  the  catacombs  of 
Rome  there  is  the  most  perfect  union,  for  all   are  lifeless. 
Even  among  the  children  of  the  world,  thoughtless,  reckless 
as  they  are,  there  are  no  religious  disputes,  for  all  are  spirit- 
ually dead.     There  are  no  varieties  of  opinion  among  a  gal- 
lery of  marble  statues,  for  a  perfect  unbroken  unity  is  evidence 
of  death  and  not  of  life.     The  only  true  unity  which  is  worth 
having,  and  which  is  quite  consistent  with  diversity  of  senti- 
ment, is  the  union  of  holy  brotherhood — the  union  of  the 
children  of  Christ — the  union  of  Christian  heart  with  Chris- 
tian heart,  and  the  union  of  both  in  Jesus  Christ,  where, 


88  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

knowing  that  a  perfect  unity  of  opinion  is  no  more  possible, 
than  a  perfect  similarity  of  face,  and  knowing  that  there  may 
be  an  agreement  on  great  things,  agreeing  to  bear  and  forbear, 
with  differences  on  little  things,  the  hearts  of  Christians  may 
be  united  in  brotherly  love  and  sympathy,  each  with  the 
other,  and  all  seek  and  find  the  bond  of  union  in  Him,  who  is 
"  the  corner-stone  in  whom  all  the  building,  fitly  framed  to- 
gether, groweth  unto  an  holy  temple  in  the  Lord  :  in  whom 
ye  also  are  builded  together  for  an  habitation  of  God  through 
the  Spirit."— Eph.  ii.  20-22. 

And  this  is  the  union  of  the  Protestant  Churches,  or  at 
least  this  ought  to  be  their  union.  In  the  Church  of  Rome 
herself,  we  find  an  illustration,  for  she  has  within  her  bosom 
Jesuits,  and  Jansenists,  and  Dominicans,  and  Franciscans,  and 
Augustinians,  and  Benedictines,  and  Cai'melites,  and  innumer- 
able other  orders  or  sects,  all  differing  in  outward  manner,  all 
differing  in  their  rules  of  life,  all  differing  in  their  opinions  on 
some  particulars,  especially  having  all  different  practices — 
superstitious  practices,  as  I  think — prevalent  among  them,  and 
yet  they  all  have  this  bond  of  union  in  the  Pope.  Whatever 
be  their  differences,  and  sometimes  they  hate,  and  villify,  and 
intrigue  against  one  another,  acting  with  the  most  hateful 
jealousy  and  malignant  rivalry  ;  yet  they  do  all  find  a  bond 
of  union  in  the  Pope.  It  is  thus,  too,  that  the  several  Prot- 
estant Churches,  with  their  diversities  of  forms  and  sentimesits, 
too  often  also  acting  as  enemies  or  rivals  to  each  other,  yet 
find  their  bond  of  union  in  Jesus  Christ. 

He  seemed  to  like  this  idea.  His  mind  was  in  that  state 
of  first  love  for  Christ  that  he  was  ready  to  renounce  every 
church,  indeed  the  whole  world,  for  Christ :  and  he  seemed  to 
feel  that  there  could  be  union  with  Christ,  even  when  there 
was  union  nowhere  else.  "  Surely,"  said  he,  warmly,  "  we 
two,  though  of  different  churches,  are  united  in  Jesus  ?"  I 
responded  as  warmly. 

And  this,  I  contended,  is  the  scriptural  view  of  this  matter. 
The  Scriptures  speak  of  a  vast  varit4y  and  number  of  churches. 
They  speak  of  the  assemblies  of  Christians  in  private  houses 


THE    UNITY    OF    THE    CHURCH.  89 

as  churches ;  they  speak  of  the  meetings  of  believers  in  isol- 
ated towns  as  churches  ;  they  speak  of  the  aggregate  of  such 
assemblies  or  meetings  in  any  extended  province  as  churches, 
and  the  compound  or  aggregate  of  these  is  the  Church  of 
Christ.  The  multitude  of  individual  Christians  in  any  place, 
taken  together,  constitute  the  church  of  that  place,  and  the 
ao-oreorate  of  all  these  churches  constitute  the  Church  of 
Christ.  The  name  of  the  locality  thus  given  to  the  church, 
or  the  name  of  some  distinctive  peculiarity  given  to  a  church, 
no  more  affects  the  reality  of  its  Christianity  than  does  the 
name  of  the  country  or  the  color  of  the  skin  affect  the  reality 
of  the  Christian  standing  of  a  man.  If  a  man  be  a  true  be- 
liever and  follower  of  Jesus  Christ  in  the  Church  of  England — 
if  a  man  be  a  true  believer  and  faithful  follower  of  Jesus 
Christ  in  the  non-conforming  churches — ^if  a  man  be  a  true 
and  faithful  follower  of  Jesus  Christ  even  in  the  Church  of 
Rome,  that  man,  as  he  is  not  a  Christian  indeed  and  alto- 
gether merely  from  belonging  to  these  in  name,  so  neither  is 
he  excluded  from  Christianity  merely  because  he  assumes  the 
name  of  these  churches.  The  great  rule  of  Scripture  respect- 
ing nations  is  the  same  respecting  churches — "  God  is  no 
respecter  of  persons,  but  in  every  nation  [churcK],  he  that 
feareth  God  and  worketh  righteousness  is  accepted  of  Him." 
Some  churches,  as  the  Protestant,  give  a  large  amount  of 
light  and  opportunity  to  their  members ;  other  churches,  as 
Rome,  give  comparatively  no  light,  and  no  opportimities  to 
their  members.  But  still,  wherever  there  is  light,  and  knowl- 
edge, and  love,  and  faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  there  then  is  Christ- 
ianity, and  there  is  a  church,  and  there  will  be  all  the  unity 
of  Christian  brotherhood  and  Christian  love. 

He  quite  felt  with  me  in  all  this,  remarking  with  a  gentle 
smile  that  the  house  in  which  we  then  were,  was  the  house  of 
a  Methodist — a  Calvanistic  Methodist,  a  true-hearted  and  be- 
lieving man.  And  yet  he  who  was  a  Roman  Catholic  found 
a  closer  union  with  that  man,  Calvinist  and  Methodist  as  he 
was,  and  with  myself,  a  clergyman  of  the  Protestant  Church 
of  England,  than  with  any  other  two  persons  he  had  ever 


90  EVENINGS   WITH   THE   ROMANISTS. 

known.  He  said  with  great  ingenuousness,  that  he  knew  and 
liked,  and  respected  several  of  the  priests  of  his  own  church, 
and  had  many  a  long  conversation  with  them  on  religious 
subjects,  sometimes  in  private,  and  sometimes  when  many  of 
them  were  together,  but  still  he  had  never  felt  the  same  union 
— the  same  attraction — the  same  drawing  of  his  heart — the 
same  drawing  out  of  his  inner  feelings,  as  he  felt  toward  either 
of  us.  He  could  thus  understand  the  real  Christians — the 
real  lovers  of  Jesus  Christ  in  all  the  sects,  overlooking  in  oth- 
ers, and  forgetting  in  themselves,  the  petty  differences  which 
separated  them,  and  seeing  in  each  other  only  a  love  for  their 
common  Saviour,  feel  themselves  more  truly  united  by  that 
bond,  than  by  any  thing  of  peculiar  name  or  peculiar  form. 

The  tone  and  manner  of  this  interesting  young  person  as 
he  spoke,  was  far  more  expressive  than  his  words  themselves. 
There  was  something  so  true,  so  earnest,  so  ingenuous  in  his 
manner,  his  heart  seemed  so  full,  and  his  eyes  at  times  over- 
flowing with  the  large  tear,  that  gave  a  wonderful  life  and 
reality  to  all  he  said,  and  coming  as  it  did  from  one,  who  was 
still  a  member  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  one  who,  so  far  as 
he  then  imagined,  was  never  to  part  from  her,  his  words  had, 
for  me,  a  very  especial  interest.  I  felt  he  could  not  be  long 
retained  where  he  then  was. 

We  had  some  conversation  as  to  certain  points  that  to  his 
pecuhar  phase  of  mind  and  feehng  were  of  more  than  usual 
interest,  and  after  a  time  I  reverted  to  the  subject  of  Unity 
again. 

He  said,  in  reply  to  a  few  words  from  me  respecting  the 
diversities  of  the  religious  or  conventual  orders,  that  it  was 
not  fair  to  say,  as  some  of  his  own  Church  often  said,  that  such 
diversities  of  orders  did  not  imply  a  diversity  of  doctrine  or 
practice.  He  was  fully  aware  that  the  predestinarian  contro- 
versy, existing  between  the  Calvinistic  and  Wesleyan  Metho- 
dists, was  identical  with  the  same  controversy  between  the 
Jansenists  and  Jesuits,  not  indeed  as  essential  to  these  two 
orders,  but  the  Jansenists  were  Calvinists,  and  the  Jesuits 
were  Arminians,  and  thus  the  very  same  controversy  raged 


THE  UNITY  OF  THE  CHURCH.  91 

b 

between  them,  which  now  divides  the  Protestant  Churches — 
the  chief  ditference  being  that  the  Pope  interfered,  and  dechn- 
ino-  to  say  which  was  right  or  which  was  wrong,  decided  on 
authoritatively  suppressing  and  silencing  the  controversy,  for- 
bidding, under  the  heaviest  penalties  of  the  church,  any  fur- 
ther discussion  of  the  subject.  He  added  with  a  smile,  that 
this  was  a  mode  of  settling  a  controversy  hardly  admissible 
among  Protestants. 

To  this  I  could  not  but  assent.  I  added,  however,  that 
there  was  scarcely  a  subject  of  controversy  among  Protestants, 
that  was  not  also  a  subject  of  controversy  among  Romanists. 
It  is  true  that  they  are  always  talking  of  their  unity ; — as 
they  claim  to  possessing  the  most  perfect  unity,  so  by  con- 
stantly and  repeatedly  reiterating  the  assertion  that  they  have 
unity  in  their  church,  they  succeed  in  making  some  believe 
them.  The  incessant  and  persevering  assertion  of  many  per- 
sons reiterating  any  one  statement,  is  certain  to  secure  a  belief 
amono-  many.  But  after  all,  there  is  not  one  subject  of  con- 
troversy among  Protestants  that  does  not  also,  to  a  certain 
extent,  exist  among  Romanists.  That  great  question  already 
referred  to,  the  question  of  predestination,  is  an  instance  of 
this.     It  is  equally  true  respecting  others. 

He  asked  me  to  what  I  alluded. 

I  said  that  one  of  the  most  distui'bing  subjects  of  strife  ever 
known  in  England,  was  that  which  related  to  the  robes  or  the 
dress  of  the  clergy — whether  they  should  robe  in  white  sur- 
plices, or  black  gowns.  The  very  same  controversy  existed 
in  the  Church  of  Rome,  in  the  various  branches  of  the  Mendi- 
cant Orders.  They  seem  to  rend  the  whole  church  to  pieces 
about  the  length  of  their  hoods,  and  the  color  of  their  robes. 
The  wisdom  of  the  Church  of  Rome  was,  that  she  left  them 
all  to  wear  what  they  pleased,  provided  only  they  submitted 
to  the  See  of  Rome.  And  after  all,  what  was  the  difference 
between  many  of  our  sects  and  the  Church  of  England  ?  It 
was  merely  that  they  did  not  wish  to  be  under  the  control  and 
authority  of  the  bishop.  They  declared  themselves  independ- 
ent of  him.     And  the  very  same  system  exists  at  this  moment 


92  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

in  the  Churcli  of  Rome,  for  the  various  religious  or  conventual 
orders  have  very  generally  obtained  the  privilege  of  being  to- 
tally exempt  from  the  authority  and  jurisdiction  of  the  local 
bishop.  It  is  one  of  the  privileges  of  the  Order  of  the  Jesuits, 
that  its  members  are  independent  of  the  local  bishop.  This 
principle  is  admitted  into  the  Church  of  Rome. 

He  quickly  took  me  up  here,  and  said  that  I  brought  to 
mind  that  he  had  often  heard  that  the  Jesuit  College  at 
Clongowes  was  exempt  from  the  authority  of  the  bishop, 
although  the  College  of  Maynooth  was  subject  to  him. 

I  said  that  it  was  an  illustration  of  my  position.  But,  I 
added,  we  can  go  much  further,  for  whereas  many  of  the  di- 
versities among:  Protestants  are  mere  diversities  of  form  in  the 
services  of  their  different  churches,  so  the  very  same  diversity 
exists  in  the  Church  of  Rome.  In  all  the  chapels  of  the  Con- 
ventual Orders,  there  is  a  most  marked  diversity  of  practice. 
Indeed  each  Order  may  be  known  by  its  peculiar  forms — pe- 
culiar prayers — peculiar  rosaries — peculiar  festivals — peculiar 
holydays — peculiar  religious  duties.  They  all  differ  as  wide- 
ly one  from  another,  as  do  the  services  or  forms  of  any  of  our 
Protestant  Churches.  The  Church  of  Rome  shows  her  pro- 
found and  practical  wisdom  in  licensing  each  and  all.  It 
leaves  her  people  to  choose  such  things  for  themselves,  pro- 
vided only,  they  implicitly  submit  to  the  authority  of  the  Pa- 
pal See.  I  think  she  is  perfectly  right  in  doing  so,  and  only 
wish  she  may  have  many  imitators  ;  but  what  I  complain  of 
is,  that  while  such  diversities  exist  in  her  own  body,  she 
charges  the  Protestant  Churches  with  a  want  of  unity  on  ac- 
count of  the  existence  of  diversities  which  also  exist  within  her 
own  bosom. 

He  said  that  all  this  he  feared  was  too  true.  He  knew  per- 
sonally of  subjects  of  endless  dispute  among  such  of  his  church 
as  were  earnest  and  zealous — quite  as  many  as  among  Protest- 
ants ;  but,  he  added,  that  it  was  generally  agreed  among  Ro- 
man Catholics  that  their  differences  were  small,  and  related 
only  to  small  things — that  they  concerned  only  matters  of 


THE    UNITY    OF    THE    CHURCH.  93 

discipline,  and  were  never  known  in  Articles  of  Faith.  And 
he  asked  me  how  I  would  answer  that  ? 

I  reminded  him  that  nhat  was  not  universally  true.  I  felt 
disposed  to  deal  very  gently  with  every  argument  that  came 
from  himself;  but  he  frequently  put  forward  the  arguments 
of  others,  in  order  to  learn  how  to  deal  with  them — at  least  it 
seemed  so  to  me.  I  was  not  disposed  to  spare  such  arguments, 
and  therefore  I  now  said,  that  this  was  far  from  being  univer- 
sally true.  There  were  two  controversies  particularly,  to 
which  I  would  refer :  one  was  as  to  the  seat  of  Infallibility. 
Italy  and  France  are  hopelessly  divided  ;  as  to  whether  Infal- 
libility be  vested  in  the  Pope  or  in  a  General  Council.  And 
himdreds  of  theologians  have  spent  all  their  strength  in  de- 
vouring one  another  like  wild  beasts,  in  settling  this  contro- 
versy, which  has  not  yet  been  decided.  Another  is  the  dis- 
pute as  to  the  Immaculate  Conception ;  as  to  whether  the 
Conception  of  Anna,  by  which  she  gave  birth  to  Mary,  was 
as  miraculous  and  free  from  original  sin  as  the  conception  of 
Mary  in  giving  birth  to  the  Messiah.  There  never  arose  be- 
tween two  rival  sects  of  Protestants,  a  controversy  carried  on 
with  more  fiend-like  malice  and  ferocity  than  that  which  char- 
acterized the  disputes  between  the  rival  Orders  of  the  Domin- 
icans and  Franciscans  on  this  subject.  And  it  must  be  allowed 
that  these  concern  matters  of  the  first  and  last  importance  in 
the  Church  of  Rome. 

This  person  was  a  young  man  of  about  my  own  age — per- 
haps a  year  j^ounger — and  this  pai^.y  of  years  led  to  much 
frank  and  sincere  interchange  of  thought  on  the  subject  of  re- 
ligion. He  always  stated  his  objections  and  difficulties  when- 
ever he  felt  any,  and  very  frequently  when  he  felt  none,  he 
stated  the  objections  and  difficulties  of  others,  so  as  to  learn 
how  I  could  deal  with  them.  On  the  present  point  he  said, 
he  knew  personally,  subjects  enough  of  difference  among  the 
zealous  of  the  clergy  of  his  Church. 

After  some  further  conversation  on  his  own  experience  as  to 
such  sources  of  difference,  I  asked — 

Is  it  not  a  fact  that  the  differences  between  the  various  Prot- 


94  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

estant  Churches  are  not  on  articles  of  Faith,  but  principally 
upon  mere  points  of  discipline  ?  That  one  church  is  governed 
by  Bishops  and  is  called  EpiscopalijfQ — that  another  is  ruled 
by  a  Presbytery,  and  is  thence  styled  Presbyterian — that  a 
third  is  founded  on  the  principles  of  the  freedom  of  the  par- 
ticular church  from  the  authority  of  any  other,  and  is  on  that 
account  called  Independent — that  one  chiu'ch  prefers  an  au- 
thorized liturgy — that  another  chooses  a  liturgy  of  her  own 
selection — that  a  third  adopts  a  settled  arrangement  of  ex- 
temporaneous prayer — that  one  has  deacons  to  regulate  its 
services — that  another  has  church-wardens  to  attend  to  its  af- 
fairs— that  a  third  is  carried  on  without  either  one  or  the 
other — that  one  church  adopts  a  formal  catechismal  instruc- 
tion— that  a  second  prefers  a  Sunday-school  system — that  a 
third  has  no  system  at  all — that  one  church  prefers  administer- 
ing baptism  to  infants — that  another  decides  for  baptizing 
adults — that  one  adopts  open-air  preaching  and  class-meetings, 
and  assemblies  in  barns  and  out-houses — that  another  prefers 
a  more  formal  and  regulated  system  of  public  service — that 
one  church  adopts  a  black  dress  for  its  officiating  ministers — 
that  another  prefers  a  white  surplice — that  a  third  will  have 
neither  one  nor  the  other — these  surely  are  all  matters  of  dis- 
cipline— all  mere  trifles  that  have  nothing  to  do  with  Articles 
of  Faith.  And  yet  these  and  such  things  as  these,  are  the  only, 
or  at  least  the  principal  points  of  separation  between  the  vari- 
ous Protestants  among  us. 

He  said,  laughing,  that  although  it  seemed  very  absurd,  yet 
it  was  very  true.  These  were  not  Articles  of  Faith  :  they  were 
merely  matters  of  discipline.  But  are  there  not  also,  he  asked, 
some  differences  on  articles  of  faith  ? 

I  said — No.  And  then  added,  that  when  we  speak  of  Ar- 
ticles of  Faith,  we  mean  the  Articles  of  our  Creeds.  Now, 
our  several  sects.  Church  of  England,  Church  of  Scotland,  In- 
dependents, Methodists,  Baptists,  and  generally  all  the  Prot- 
estant Churches  hold  each  and  all  the  Articles  contained  in 
the  Creeds.  There  may  be  shades  of  difference  as  to  the  ex- 
planation of  words  and  things,  but  they  are  all  agreed  in  the 


THE    UNITT    OF    THE    CHURCH.  96 

main.  My  full  conviction  is  that  there  is  as  close  and  com- 
pact a  union  of  doctrine  in  the  Protestant  Church  as  iu  the 
several  churches  constituting  the  body  of  the  Roman  Church ; 
while  in  matters  of  discipline,  it  was  no  easy  matter  to  deter- 
mine in  which  the  greatest  variety  was  found  to  exist.  The 
great  and  plain  truth  seems  to  be  this — Romanists  have  their 
differences  about  what  their  Church  says,  but  they  agree  to 
refer  all  to  the  decision  of  the  Papal  See.  There  is  their  point 
of  unity.  Protestants  have  their  ditferences  among  themselves 
about  what  the  Holy  Scriptures  say,  but  they  are  all  agreed  to 
refer  all  to  the  authority  of  the  Holy  Scriptures.  There  is 
their  point  of  unity. 

He  was  very  much  struck  with  this  statement ;  he  seemed 
fully  to  take  it  in.  It  seemed  to  satisfy  the  feeling  that 
was  at  work  in  his  inner  mind.  He  expressed  himself  very 
strongly. 

I  then  continued,  and  asked  again — 

But  what  is  the  real  force  or  strength  of  this  objection  ?  It 
assumes,  that  because  the  Protestant  Churches  are  divided, 
when  they  ought  to  be  united,  they  therefore  are  not  true 
churches,  and  there  is  no  truth  in  Protestantism.  Perhaps 
the  simplest  mode  of  dealing  with  this  objection  is,  by  produc- 
ing a  parallel.  I  will  suppose  the  case  of  a  Jew,  or  of  a  Mo- 
hammedan, or  of  a  Hindoo,  who  is  asked  to  become  a  Chris- 
tian; he  at  once  refuses  on  the  ground  that  there  is  no  truth 
in  Christianity.  He  is  pressed  for  his  arguments,  and  he  ar- 
gues that  the  Christian  Churches  are  divided — that  there  are 
Roman  Churches  and  Greek  Churches  and  Asiatic  Churches 
and  Protestant  Churches — that  they  are  thus  di\dded  when 
they  ought  to  be  united — that  as  Christianity  is  one  and  the 
Church  of  Christ  one,  and  the  people  of  Christ  desired  by 
Him  to  be  one ;  so  none  of  these  can  be  true  Churches  of 
Christ,  and  there  can  be  no  truth  in  this  Christianity.  The 
argument  of  the  Romanist  as  against  the  Protestant  Churches, 
is  strictly  parallel  to  the  argument  of  the  Jew,  the  Mussulman, 
or  the  Hindoo,  as  against  the  Christian  Churches  at  large ; 
and  therefore,  if  there  be  any  force  in  the  argument  against 


^6 


EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 


Protestantism  on  the  ground  of  its  divisions,  then  there  is 
equal  force  in  the  argument  against  Christianity  on  the  ground 
of  its  divisions.  And  if,  on  the  other  hand,  the  Christian  may- 
laugh  to  scorn  the  objections  of  the  Jew,  the  Mussulman,  and 
the  Hindoo,  as  against  Christianity,  then  may  the  Protestant 
laugh  to  scorn  the  objections  of  the  Romanist,  as  against  our 
Protestantism. 

Twenty-seven  y^ears  have  passed  away  since  these  conversa- 
tions, of  which  the  foregoing  was  a  very  small  portion,  were 
held.  Since  then  I  have  seen  no  reason  to  change  my  opin- 
ions or  to  depart  from  my  position.  On  the  other  hand,  I 
have  visited  many  lands  and  have  been  a  not  inattentive  ob- 
server of  the  working  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  both  in  the 
city  of  the  church,  in  Rome  herself — and  in  almost  every 
countiy  in  Europe. 

That  opportunity  for  observation  through  many  successive 
years  has  strengthened  my  views,  and  I  feel  more  strongly 
than  ever,  that  of  all  the  churches  of  Christendom,  the  very 
last  that  ought  to  speak  of  diveisities  or  divisions,  is  the  Church 
of  Rome.  It  is  her  boast  and  pride  that  she  admits  and  sanc- 
tions almost  every  diversity  of  doctrine  and  of  discipline,  pro- 
vided there  be  unity  in  submission  to  the  Supreme  Pontiff  of 
Rome.  I  have  myself  witnessed  in  the  church  of  the  Propa- 
ganda Fide  in  Rome,  during  the  season  of  the  Epiphany,  no 
less  than  five  different  churches,  as  the  Greek,  the  Armenian, 
the  Nestorian,  the  Syriac,  the  Coptic,  as  well  as  the  Roman, 
all  celebrating  the  Lord's  Supper,  at  different  altars,  and  in 
different  ways.  The  ceremonies  were  different.  The  man- 
ner of  service  was  different.  The  forms  of  worship  were  dif- 
ferent. The  languages  were  different.  In  short,  I  have  never 
seen  or  observed  so  great  a  dissimilitude  between  the  Lord's 
Supper  in  the  Lutheran — the  Evangelical,  the  Episcopalian, 
the  Presbyterian,  the  non-conforming  churches  of  the  Protes- 
tant Communion,  as  I  have  seen  and  observed  among  those 
sections  of  the  Eastern  Churches  that  are  joined  in  the  com- 
munion of  the  Roman  Church.     I  have  'witnessed  seven  dif- 


THE    UNITY    OF    THE    CHURCH.  97 

ferent  forms — seven  different  litui'gies — seven  different  lan- 
guages— and  seven  different  modes  of  celebrating  the  Lord's 
Supper,  all  in  the  Church  of  St.  Andrea  della  Valle  in  Rome. 
I  have  witnessed  all  the  Greek  rites  in  a  Greek  Church — I 
have  seen  all  the  Armenian  rites  in  an  Armenian  Church  in 
that  city.  Every  diversity  of  doctrine  and  liturgy,  and  disci- 
pline, and  language,  is  allowed  and  formally  sanctioned,  pro- 
vided only  all  parties  observe  the  one  j)oint  of  unity — submis- 
sion to  the  supreme  Pontiffs  of  Rome.  So  far  is  that  carried, 
that  in  the  Concordats  or  Articles  of  agreement  with  Rome, 
there  are  special  clauses  reserving  to  whole  countries  the  right 
to  have  their  own  liturgy  and  rites,  and  language,  in  jjreference 
to  that  of  the  Romish  Church,* 

In  all  this  the  Church  of  Rome  has  exhibited  her  profound 
worldly  policy.  She  imagines  and  sanctions  the  utmost  di- 
versities and  divisions,  but  she  demands  a  perfect  unity  under 
the  Papal  See,  and  therefore  she  is  the  very  last  church  in 
Christendom  that  should  point  disparagingly  at  the  diversities 
or  divisions  of  Protestant  Christianity,  or  should  make  Unity 
the  essential  note  or  mark  of  the  true  Church. 

The  same  remark  applies  to  the  religious  worship  of  the 
various  Roman  Catholic  countries  of  Europe.  No  observant 
traveler  will  fail  to  see  a  very  marked  difference,  amidst  much 
that  is  similar,  between  the  Roman  Catholic  religion  of  Italy 
— of  Germany — of  France — of  Ireland,  and  between  them 
all,  and  that  of  England.  This  difference  is  observable  es- 
pecially  in  public  worship,  not  indeed  in  the  mass-service,  which 
preserves  a  sort  of  unity,  but  in  almost  all  the  other  services. 
The  prayers,  the  litanies,  the  rosaries,  the  festivals  are  different. 
Even  in  the  litanies  to  the  Virgin  Mary,  there  is  as  wide  a  dif- 
ference between,  for  example  that  used  in  my  own  presence  in 
Switzerland,  at  Einsedlin,  and  that  recited  in  France,  at  Paris, 
as  it  is  possible  to  conceive.     Very  frequently  the  beginning 

*  Shortly  after  the  Reformation,  the  Pope  offered  to  sanction  the  Book 
of  Common  Prayer  in  the  Church  of  England,  notwithstanding  all  its 
Protestantism,  if  only  the  Church  of  England  would  acknowledge  the 
authority  of  the  Papal  See. 

5 


98  EVENINGS   WITH   THE   EOMANISTS. 

and  the  end  are  the  same,  while  a  totally  new  and  different 
series  of  petitions,  form  the  middle  of  the  litany.  I  have 
some  of  these  diverse  litanies  before  me  at  this  moment,  hav- 
ing purchased  them  on  the  spot.  The  same  remark  applies 
to  their  forms  of  prayer.  The  series  of  services  in  the  chapels 
of  the  monkish  establishments  is  widely  different  from  the 
services  in  another  of  a  different  order.  They  are  incompar- 
ably more  diverse  than  any  thing  with  which  I  am  acquainted 
in  the  services  of  the  conformist,  or  non-conformist  churches. 
And  as  to  items  or  points  of  belief,  every  one  who  has  travel- 
ed, is  aware  of  the  immense  diversities  of  opinion  which  pre- 
vail as  to  infallibility — as  to  the  worship  of  the  Virgin  Mary 
— as  to  the  degree  of  worship  due  to  images  and  pictures — as 
to  indulgences,  penances,  etc. 

Still  her  advocates  are  always  vaunting  of  her  unity,  and 
objecting  to  the  want  of  unity,  among  Protestant  Christians  ! 

"When  engaged  in  controversy  with  Roman  Cathohcs,  I 
have  met  this  objection  sometimes  in  the  following  way. 

I  have  narrated  a  scene  which  I  may  have  witnessed,  in 
which  multitudes  knelt  or  prostrated  themselves  before  a  little 
moldy  bone,  or  dirty  rag— some  shivered  sjilinter  of  a  bone, 
or  thread  of  some  wretched  rag,  palmed  on  them  as  the  rehc 
of  some  saint — superstitiously  rubbed  their  foreheads  to  it,  or 
devoutly  kissed  it,  and  prayed  to  it  in  precisely  the  same  way, 
60  far  as  appearances  went,  as  when  adoring  the  Host  on  the 
altar,  which  they  imagine  to  be  their  God. 

Or  I  have  read  from  some  of  their  devotional  works,  pub- 
lished in  Roman  Catholic  countries,  long  passages  expository 
of  their  faith,  or  long  prayers  illustrating  their  devotion,  or 
careful  directions  to  govern  their  practice — passages  of  such 
nature  as  I  knew  would  be  rejected  and  denounced  by  the 
hearers,  such  works  being  published  by  authority. 

Or,  I  have  stated  my  having  seen  1  he  sacrifice  of  the  Mass 
openly  sold  in  the  churches — having  myself  personally  pur- 
chased them,  and  got  a  receipt  formally  signed  for  my  money 
— and  this  money  taken  by  the  priests  who  were  selling  them, 
under  pretense  of  their  being  able  to  relieve  the  souls  in  Pur- 


THE  UNITY  OF  THE  CHURCH.  99 

gatory,  and  believed  by  the  people  who  were  buying  them,  to 
be  efficacious  to  relieve  the  souls  of  their  departed  friends. 

Or,  I  have  stated  my  having  seen  and  examined  many  pic- 
tures and  images,  reputed  to  be  miraculous,  that  is,  represent- 
ed as  able  to  work  miracles,  by  the  priests,  and  believed  as 
such  by  the  people — weeping  pictures,  speaking  images,  wink- 
ing Madonnas,  etc.  And  the  people  in  thousands  worshiping 
them  and  giving  money  to  them  which  the  priests  appropri- 
ated to  themselves. 

Or,  I  have  read  from  works  authorized  abroad,  and  some- 
times published  in  this  country,  statements  speaking  of  the 
Virgin  Mary  as  Omnipotent,  as  descending  every  Saturday 
night  to  Purgatory  to  release  her  worshipers — as  able  to  com- 
mand as  her  Son  Jesus  Christ ;  statements  practically  placing 
her  in  the  stead  of  God. 

Or,  I  have  stated  that  I  have  been  present  and  witnessed 
members  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  going  on  their  naked  knees, 
in  circles  round  and  round  upon  stones,  on  the  top  of  a  mount- 
ain, believing  that  they  removed  their  sins  by  the  shedding 
of  their  own  blood  streaming  from  their  knees,  and  "stating  to 
myself  that  they  were  so  taught  by  their  priests. 

I  have  stated  these  things  and  things  like  these  to  members 
of  the  Church  of  Rome,  when  boasting  of  their  perfect  unity  ; 
and  they  invariably  exclaimed  against  them  and  against  their 
being  supposed  to  believe  such  doctrines  or  to  follow  such  prac- 
tices. They  always  reject  them,  and  often  denounce  them, 
saying  that  the  Roman  Catholics  of  England  ought  not  to  be 
judged  by  the  Roman  Catholics  of  other  countries. 
-  I  then  ask  them.  Where  is  their  boasted  unity  ?  If  thou- 
sands in  Italy  worship  moldy  bones,  and  dirty  rags,  and  be- 
lieve in  their  miraculous  powers,  and  Roman  Catholics  of 
England  reject  and  denounce  this,  then  there  is  no  unity  be- 
tween them  and  the  Roman  Catholics  of  England.  If  thou- 
sands in  Spain  believe  in  miraculous  images  and  pictures,  and 
spend  their  time  and  their  money  on  them,  and  if  the  Roman 
Catholics  of  England  object  to  and  oppose  such  superstitions, 
then  it  is  clear  their  faith  and  practice  is  not  at  unity  with 


100  EVENINGS    "WITH    THE    KOMANISTS. 

that  of  the  Roman  Catholics  of  Spain.  If  millions  in  France 
read  and  believe  the  strangest  doctrines  respecting  the  Virgin 
Mary,  her  nature  and  her  powers,  and  the  Roman  Catholics 
of  England  reject  and  condemn  the  books  teaching  these 
things,  then  it  is  plain  there  is  no  unity  between  them  on 
such  points.  If  the  whole  population  of  some  countries  be- 
lieve that  they  can  purchase  masses,  by  which  to  relieve  the 
souls  of  their  friends  in  Purgatory — and  if  the  priests  teach 
them  so  and  sell  the  masses,  then  if  the  Roman  Catholics  of 
England  reject  and  condemn  this,  it  is  an  evidence  that  they 
are  not  of  one  mind  with  the  Roman  Catholics  of  those  other 
countries  on  the  subject.  If  multitudes  in  some  lands  believe 
that  they  can  take  away  their  sins  by  painful,  absurd,  and 
superstitious  practices,  as  that  of  walking  on  their  knees  till 
the  blood  streams  from  them,  and  if  the  Roman  Catholics  of 
England  refuse  to  hold  the  same  belief  or  to  do  the  same  pen- 
ance, then  it  is  jiractical  evidence  of  a  wide  difference  of  belief 
and  practice,  and  of  the  absence  of  the  unity  of  which  they 
speak  so  much. 

I  have  found  by  experience  that  this  mode  of  arguing  is 
frequently  veiy  successful  in  silencing  some  persons.  The 
clearly  describing  practices  like  these,  or  the  reading  an  ob- 
jectionable passage  from  some  of  their  books,  and  asking  them 
whether  they  approve  the  one  or  believe  the  other,  will  very 
often  elicit  a  reply  that  Avill  illustrate  a  want  of  unity ;  and 
illustrate  it  in  such  a  way  as  will  be  very  effective  upon  all 
who  witness  it.  At  least  I  have  frequently  found  persons 
sorely  troubled,  and  sometimes  entirely  silenced  by  it.  And 
therefore,  whenever  they  deny  or  reject  or  denounce  any  such 
doctrine  or  practice  or  writing,  I  always  remind  them  that 
their  doing  so  is  an  evidence  of  as  great  a  difference  of  private 
judgment  in  the  Roman  Churches  as  in  the  Protestant 
Churches. 

I  have  frequently  witnessed  the -effects  of  another  mode  of 
dealing,  with .  those  who  argue  in  a  spirit  of  controversy  and 
vaunt  the  unity  of  their  Church,  against  the  divisions  among 
Protestants.     They  boldly  claim  the  most  perfect'  and  entire 


THE    UNITY    OF    THE    CHURCH.  101 

unity,  saying  that  altliougli  there  may  be  differences,  as  to 
matters  of  discipHne,  yet  every  one  through  the  whole  church 
is  in  the  most  perfect  accord  on  every  article  of  Faith.  It  is 
perfectly  surprising  and  sometimes  imposing,  how  confidently 
this  assertion  is  hazarded. 

I  have  asked  such  persons,  especially  when  many  are  pres- 
ent, whether  they  believe  that  Protestants,  being  out  of  the 
Roman  Church,  can  be  saved? 

Being  afraid  of  being  thought  illiberal  and  bigoted,  espe- 
cially when  many  persons  are  present,  they  usually  answer  in 
the  affirmative^-that  Protestants  may  be  saved  out  of  the 
Church  of  Rome. 

I  have  then  read  the  article  of  their  creed :  after  specifying 
trausubstantiation,  purgatory,  indulgences,  papal  supremacy, 
etc.,  and  asserting  these  to  be  the  Catholic  feithof  the  Roman 
Church,  it  goes  on  to  say,  "  This  is  the  true  Catholic  faith,  out 
of  which  no  man  can  be  saved."  Here  then  is  an  article  of 
faith.     Do  you  believe  it  ? 

If  there  are  many  Roman  Catholics  present,  this  question  is 
certain  to  divide  them,  and  on  such  occasions,  it  is  perfectly 
surprising  to  witness  the  violent  evidence  they  give,  showing 
how  little  unity  exists  among  them  on  this  "  article  of  Faith." 

The  desire  of  some  to  adhere  to  this  creed,  and  the  desire 
of  others  to  be  thought  liberal,  leads  to  strange  collisions.  It 
always  puts  an  end  to  any  previous  boasting  on  the  subject  of 
unity. 


THE  HOLINESS  OF  THE  CHUHCH. 

« 

A  Conversation  on  tho  Holiness  of  Churches — Tho  Claim  of  the  Church  of  Rome  as 
the  alone  "  Holy  Church" — Her  first  ground,  Holiness  of  Doctrine — This  as  ap- 
plicalile  to  other  Churches — Contradiction  of  the  Church  of  Rome — Her  second. 
Holy  Sacraments— Her  third,  Holy  Saints — This  Examined — Martin  Luther  and 
Henry  VIII. — The  Objection  as  connected  with  their  Names  Answered. 

There  was  in  a  parish  several  miles  distant  from  me,  a 
small  knot  of  very  active  and  zealous  members  of  the  Church 
of  Rome.  They  used  to  meet  often,  and  by  books  and  conversa- 
tion managed  to  make  themselves  up  on  controverted  subjects. 
Some  of  them  distinguished  themselves  by  their  steady,  de- 
termined opposition  to  the  movement  at  work,  at  that  time, 
in  the  minds  of  the  masses,  and  they  not  unfrequently  used  to 
challenge  the  more  earnest  and  best-informed  Protestants,  to 
discuss  the  contested  points  of  doctrine  and  discipline. 

One  of  these  was  a  clever,  intelligent  man.  He  was  the 
head  of  the  Carmelites  or  Scapularians  in  the  district,  and 
was  much  looked  up  to  by  the  peasantry,  as  a  right,  proper 
man.  He  was  shrewd  and  sharp,  but  cold  and  unimpressible. 
His  temper  was  perfect  equanimity  itself.  No  one  could  speak 
a  word  that  could  change  the  still,  immovable  expression  of 
his  features.  He  was  as  a  marble,  or  rather  a  wooden  statue, 
when  speaking  or  inquiring.  And  yet  his  appearance  was 
prepossessing.  A  bald  head,  a  smooth  chin,  a  sleek  shining 
face,  a  quick,  keen,  dark  eye,  a  nose  intensely  Irish,  and  pre- 
senting altogether,  a  neat,  clean,  precise-looking  personao-e. 

He  was  the  head  of  the  confraternity  of  Carmelites  or 
Scapularians  of  the  district.  These  persons  all  wear  a  scapular 
inside  their  clothes,  near  the  left  shoulder.  They  meet  to- 
gether for  the  purpose  of  praying  souls  out  of  Purgatory,  and 


THE    HOLINESS    OF   THE    CHUKCH.  103 

they  believe — it  is  a  privilege  granted  to  all  that  wear  the 
scapular  in  life,  a  privilege  secured  to  them  on  the  faith  of  a 
Papal -Bull — that  the  Virgin  Mary  descends  every  Saturday 
night  to  Purgatory,  and  bears  with  her  to  heaven  all  who 
have  worn  the  scapular. 

This  man  was  supposed  to  be  such  a  master  of  religion 
that  he  could  easily  confute  every  argument  that  could  be  ad- 
vanced by  me.  Some  of  his  fellow-parishioners,  who  were  in- 
quiring into  religious  things  for  themselves,  and  who  yet  had 
great  confidence  in  him,  proposed  that  there  should  be  a 
meeting  between  us  in  the  presence  of  some  twenty  of  their 
members.  We  met  at  the  house  of  a  Roman  Catholic  farmer, 
and  the  question  proposed  was,  The  True  Church. 

He  commenced  by  stating  that  the  Church  is  holy — that 
it  is  one  of  the  notes  or  marks  of  the  true  Church  that  it  is 
holy — that  in  the  creed  called  the  Nicene,  and  which  is  re- 
ceived by  Romanists  and  Protestants  alike,  it  is  called  the 
"  one  holy  Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church,"  and  in  the  Apostles' 
Creed  is  called  "  the  Holy  Catholic  Church  ;"  and  that  this 
note  or  mark  of  holiness  was  to  be  the  test  by  which  the 
claim  of  any  Church  must  be  tried,  if  it  claims  to  be  the  true 
Church  of  Jesus  Christ.  He  then  referred  to  a  number  of 
places  in  Holy  Scripture,  in  which  it  is  stated  that  the  people 
of  God  should  be  a  holy  people  ;  as,  "  Ye  are  an  holy  nation," 
and  "  Be  ye  holy,  for  the  Lord  our  God  is  holy,"  and  "  With- 
out holiness  no  man  shall  see  the  Lord."  And  thus,  as  he 
conceived,  he  proved  that  holiness  was  an  essential  mark  of 
the  true  Church,  concluding  by  asking  me  whether  I  assented 
to  his  statement. 

I  immediately  assented,  saying,  that  there  could  be  no  doubt 
or  question  as  to  the  necessity  for  holiness.  God  is  a  holy 
God  ;  the  Saviour  is  a  holy  Saviour ;  the  Spirit  is  a  holy 
Spirit ;  and,  therefore,  every  doctrine  revealed  of  God  must 
necessarily  be  a  holy  doctrine  ;  and  every  practice  taught  of 
God  must  be  a  holy  practice.  His  heavens,  I  added,  are  a 
holy  place ;  His  angels  are  holy  angels  ;  His  redeemed  and 
glorified  people  are  a  holy  people.     And  in  the  Holy  Scrip- 


104  EVENINGS    WITH    THE   ROMANISTS. 

tures  the  name  given  to  all  His  people  on  earth  is  that  of 
"  saints,"  which  means  "  holy  ones,"  or  "  sanctified  ones." 
There  can  be  no  doubt  or  question,  therefore,  that  holiness,  in 
the  meaning  of  the  Scriptures,  is  a  fitting  test  to  try  every 
doctrine  and  every  practice,  and  a  mark  or  note  of  the  true 
Church :  a  church  must  be  a  holy  church. 

This  admission  on  my  part  seemed  to  give  him  great  satis- 
faction. He  seemed  to  have  expected  a  difierent  answer, 
though  it  was  difiicult  to  imagine  on  what  grounds.  At  all 
events,  he  expressed  himself  greatly  pleased,  as  if  relieved  of 
the  necessity  for  proving  his  position. 

He  then  said,  that  holiness  being  a  mark  or  note  of  the 
true  Church,  as  had  been  admitted  by  me,  the  next  point  for 
him  to  prove  was,  that  this  note  or  mark  belonged  to  the 
Church  of  Rome.  Now,  a  church,  he  added,  may  be  holy  in 
three  different  ways.  She  may  have,  in  the  first  place,  holi- 
ness of  doctrine — that  is,  that  all  her  doctrines  are  holy ;  or 
she  may  have,  in  the  second  place,  the  means,  the  sacramental 
means,  of  imparting  holiness  to  her  members ;  or,  lastly,  she 
may  have  produced  and  nourished  and  perfected  the  most 
holy  saints  as  her  children.  A  church,  he  added,  in  conclu- 
sion, may  be  holy  in  any  one  of  these  three  particulars ;  but, 
if  a  church  has  each  and  all  of  them  at  the  same  time, 
then  indeed  she  is  a  holy  church  ;  and  this — this,  he  said 
emphatically,  is  the  Church  of  Rome  ;  for  all  her  doctrines 
are  holy — all  her  sacraments  are  means  to  holiness — and  all 
the  saints  were  her  members. 

I  was  pleased  with  the  precision  of  his  statements,  saying, 
that  it  would  enable  all  our  hearers  to  understand  the  ara:u- 
ment  clearly ;  and  I  suggested  that  we  should  take  each  of 
these  three  particulars  separately,  and  examine  their  applica- 
bility to  our  respective  churches.  I  suggested  that  this  would 
be  our  easiest  course  for  ourselves,  as  well  as  the  most  simple 
and  intelligible  for  our  hearers.  This  suggestion  met  with 
universal  approval,  so  I  begged  of  him  to  state  the  first  par- 
ticular. 

He  was  a  precise   and  methodical  controversialist  in  the 


THE    HOLINESS    OF   THE    CHURCH.  105 

beaten  track,  as  laid  down  in  most  of  the  controversial  works 
of  his  church  ;  so  he  said,  that  all  the  doctrines  of  the  Church 
of  Rome  were  holy.  The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  of  the  God- 
head of  the  Sou,  Jesus  Christ,  of  the  Personality  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  of  the  incarnation,  of  the  atonement,  of  regeneration, 
of  sanctification,  of  redeiiiption — all  these  doctrines  were  holy 
doctrines,  and  the  Church  of  Rome,  which  holds  and  teaches 
them,  must  be  a  holy  church.  He  then  opened  Milner's 
"End  of  Controversy,"  and  read  the  same  argument  from 
him  in  these  words  :  "  It  is  time  to  speak  of  the  doctrine  of 
the  Catholic  Church.  If  this  was  once  Holy,  namely  in  the 
ApostoHc  age,  it  is  Holy  still,  because  the  church  never 
changes  her  doctrines,  nor  suffers  any  persons  in  her  com- 
munion to  change  it,  or  to  question  any  part  of  it.  Hence 
the  adorable  mysteries  of  the  Trinity,  the  Incarnation,  etc., 
taught  by  Christ  and  his  Apostles,  and  defined  by  the  four 
first  general  councils,  are  now  as  firmly  believed  by  every 
real  Catholic,  throughout  the  whole  communion,  as  they 
were  when  these  councils  were  held."  Such,  he  added,  was 
his  argument,  proving  that  the  doctrines  of  his  church  were 
holy  doctrines ;  and,  therefore,  the  Church  of  Rome  was  a 
holy  church. 

I  replied,  by  saying,  that  all  the  doctrines  he  had  specified 
were  certainly  holy  doctrines.  And  that  every  one  of  them 
were  held  in  our  R-otestant  Churches,  as  strongly,  as  clearly, 
and  as  fully  as  the  Roman  Churches.  The  Trinity,  the  God- 
head of  Jesus  Christ,  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  Incarnation,  the 
Atonement,  etc.,  were  all  held  among  us  as  well  as  among 
them.  And  therefore,  if  this  is  to  be  the  evidence  of  hoKness 
of  doctrines,  then  the  Protestant  Churches  are  fully  as  holy  a*s 
the  Roman  Churches,  and  there  can  be  no  exclusive  claim  to 
this  epithet ;  and  thus  we  have  as  much  right  to  call  our- 
selves "  the  Holy  Catholic  Church"  as  any  other  in  Christen- 
dom. I  appealed  to  all  present,  and  then  to  himself,  as  to 
whether  it  was  not  a  fact  that  the  Protestants — especially  the 
Church  of  England  in  her  Articles — quite  as  much  as  the 
Romanists  held  these  doctrines,  and  whether  this  fact,  so  far 

5* 


106  EVENafGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

as  it  went,  did  not  give  us  as  mucli  claim  to  the  epithet  of 
"  Holy." 

I  perceived  at  once,  that  the  persons  present  saw  the  argu- 
ment as  clearly  as  myself ;  so  I  continued  and  said,  that  the 
question  was  not  as  to  the  holiness  of  those  doctrines  which 
both  our  churches  hold  alike,  but  of  those  on  which  we  differ. 
There  are  some  thiuo^s  on  which  both  churches  are  agreed. 
There  are  others  on  which  we  difi'er.  The  real  question  is — 
whether  those  doctrines  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  on  which  wo 
differ,  and  which  we  reject,  are  holy  doctrines  ?  Here,  I  said, 
here,  for  example,  is  the  creed  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  com- 
monly called  the  creed  of  Pope  Pius.  In  this  creed — now  the 
recognized  creed  of  the  Church  of  Rome — are,  first  of  all,  the 
articles  of  the  Nicene  Creed,  and  secondly,  all  the  articles  of 
the  Council  of  Trent  added  to  them.  Now  the  question  at 
present  between  us  is  not,  as  to  the  holiness  of  the  former 
articles,  but  as  to  the  latter.  These  are — the  supremacy  of 
Peter,  the  authority  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  the  doctrine  of  a 
purgatory,  the  doctrine  of  indulgences,  of  masses  for  the  dead, 
of  images  and  relics,  and  all  such  things  as  are  peculiar  to  the 
Church  of  Rome.  The  question  between  us  is,  as  to  whether 
these  are  holy  doctrines — so  holy  as  to  secure  to  your  church 
the  title  of  "  the  Holy  Church,"  and  to  deprive  us  of  that 
title  because  we  reject  them.  We  feel  that  they  are  unscrip- 
tural  and  therefore  unholy. 

There  was  here  a  pause,  as  my  opponent  gave  no  answer  or 
explanation. 

I  asked  him  to  prove  that  these  peculiar  doctrines,  especially 
that  of  pujgatory  and  of  indulgences,  were  holy. 

He  was  still  silent.  He  seemed  perplexed,  and  all  present 
seemed  more  interested  than  ever. 

I  then  continued,  saying  that  there  were  two  considerations 
in  favor  of  our  Protestant  Christianity.  In  the  first  place,  all 
its  doctrines  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  were  drawn  from  them 
were  founded  on  them,  and  on  them  alone.  They  were 
all  in  the  holy  word  of  the  holy  God ;  and,  therefore,  they 
must  necessarily  be  holy  doctrines.    On  that  point  there  can 


THE    HOLINESS    O?  THE    CHURCH.  lOY 

be  no  dispute.  In  the  next  place,  all  its  doctrines  are  received 
and  believed  in  the  Church  of  Rome  herself,  and  therefore  she 
must  allow  those  to  be  holy ;  for  example,  we  believe  two 
sacraments,  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper :  the  Church  of 
Rome  believes  them  also.  "We  believe  the  Holy  Scriptures  to 
be  the  word  of  God,  and  so  far  a  rule  of  faith ;  the  Church  of 
Rome  believes  this  also.  We  believe  in  the  intercession  of 
Jesus  Christ ;  the  Church  of  Rome  believes  it  also.  She  may 
indeed  add,  and  does  add,  five  other  nominal  sacraments  to 
our  two,  and  adds  tradition  to  our  Scriptures,  and  adds  the  in- 
tercession of  Mary  and  the  saints  to  Christ's ;  but  still  she 
believes  and  admits  all  ours.  And  so  with  all  the  other  points 
of  difference ;  she  holds  all  the  doctrines  of  our  Protestant 
Christianity,  however  she  may  add  to  them.  And,  therefore, 
she  must  acknowledge  our  doctrines  to  be  holy ;  and  therefore 
so  far  as  doctrines  go,  she  must  acknowledge  that  our  church 
has  a  good  claim  to  the  title  of  a  holy  church. 

To  this  the  only  reply  was,  that  the  Protestant  Church  had 
not  so  many  or  so  effectual  means  of  promoting  holiness  in 
her  members  ;  for  although  her  doctrines  were  certainly  held 
likewise  by  the  Church  of  Rome,  yet  she  had  not  in  the  sacra- 
ments so  many  means  of  imparting  the  grace  of  holiness  to 
her  members.  The  Protestant  had  but  two,  v/hile  the  Church 
of  Rome  had  seven. 

I  reminded  him  that  that  was  the  second  way  in  which  her 
members  were  to  test  the  claim  to  holiness — that  the  first  was 
the  holiness  of  doctrine :  that  now  he  seemed  to  have  aban- 
doned that,  and  to  have  entered  on  she  second  test,  namely, 
the  sacramental  means  of  imparting  holiness. 
He  acknowledged  this. 

I,  therefore,  reminded  him,  that  the  Protestant  Churches 
had  the  sacraments  also,  as  well  as  the  Church  of  Rome — that 
they  had  the  sacrament  of  Baptism  which  Christ  appointed — 
that  they  had  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper  which  Christ 
instituted;  and  that,  therefore,  whatever  special  means  of 
sanctity  or  hoHness  are  found  in  the  sacramental  rites,  they 


108  EVENINGS   WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

are  not  the  exclusive  property  of  either  church,  they  must 
belong  to  both  alike. 

He  said,  that  all  this  might  be  true,  so  far  as  these  two 
sacraments  are  concerned,  but  these  were  only  two,  and  the 
Protestant  Churches  had  only  these  two.  The  Church  of 
Rome  had  five  others.  Confirmation,  Penance,  Marriage, 
Orders,  and  Extreme  Unction.  And  thus  she  had  five  addi- 
tional means  of  sacramental  grace,  over  and  beside  the  two 
that  Protestants  possessed.  This  was  uttered  in  a  tone  and 
manner  that  argued  the  speaker's  conviction  of  having  set  the 
argument  at  rest.  And  it  seemed  to  have  weight  with  our 
hearers. 

I  asked  him  quietly,  perhaps  humbly,  whether  he  did  not 
agree  with  me  that  the  sacraments  of  Baptism  and  the  Lord's 
Supper  were  the  two  greatest  of  all  the  sacraments,  as  being 
the  two  specially  appointed  by  Christ  himself. 

He  said,  that  it  might,  perhaps,  be  so — that  he  believed  so. 

I  then  reminded  him,  that  we  had  those  two  sacraments 
that  are  admitted  to  be  the  greatest  and  most  precious — the 
two  appointed  by  Christ  himself  And  now,  I  continued,  have 
we  not  all  the  others  also,  except  one  ?  We  have  Confirma- 
tion, although  we  do  not  call  it  a  sacrament,  so  that  we  have 
the  thing,  though  not  the  name.  We  have  Confession  and 
Repentance,  not  indeed  to  the  ear  of  a  man,  but  to  God  him- 
self. We  have  Orders,  for  we  are  as  strict  in  ordaining  minis- 
ters as  the  Church  of  Rome  herself  We  have  Marriage  as 
fully  as  in  any  other  church.  It  is  true  we  do  not  give  the 
name  of  sacrament  to  these  rites,  but  we  have  them,  we  have 
the  rites  themselves  under  their  own  proper  names.  And, 
therefore,  whatever  means  of  sanctity  or  holiness  may  be  in 
them,  they  belong  to  us  as  much  as  to  the  Church  of  Rome. 
We  do  not  call  Confirmation  a  sacrament,  for  it  was  not. 
appointed  as  such  by  Christ :  we  do  not  call  Confession  and 
Penance  a  sacrament,  as  it  never  was  so  appointed,  but  we 
insist  on  confession  of  sin  to  God,  and  the  necessity  of  repent- 
ance toward  God.  We  do  not  call  Marriage  a  sacrament  of 
the  Gospel,  for  it  began  in  Paradise  and  exists  among  Jews 


THE    HOLINESS    OF    THE    CHURCH.  109 

and  Heathens  as  much  as  among  Christicans.  Neither  do  we 
call  Orders  a  sacrament,  for  it  was  never  so  appointed  by- 
Christ  Whatever  is  valuable  in  any  or  all  of  these,  we  have 
retained ;  we  retain  the  things  themselves,-  with  the  alone 
exception  of  Extreme  Unction,  and  we  reject  it,  because  it 
was  never  appointed  by  Christ.  And  thus  if  there  be  any- 
special  means  of  sanctity  or  holiness  in  these  ordinances,  then 
we  have  them  in  all  our  churches  as  much  as  in  the  Church 
of  Rome. 

He  seemed  to  hesitate  here,  as  if  he  had  not  seen  the  point 
in  this  light  before. 

I  therefore  asked  him  to  name  any  one  real  means  of  grace, 
or  hoHness  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  which  we  did  not  also 
possess. 

On  his  still  hesitating,  I  said  that  I  would  speak  a  few 
words  on  two  remarkable  contradictions  in  the  nominal  sacra- 
ments of  his  Church.  One  in  relation  to  marriage,  and  the 
other,  to  extreme  unction. 

The  first  is  this. — She  holds  that  celibacy  is  a  state  more 
holy  than  matrimony — that  unmarried  people  as  such,  are 
more  holy  than  married  people  as  such.  Now  all  this  may 
seem  to  me  to  be  very  absurd,  or  very  unscriptural,  or  very 
wrong,  but  still  it  is  very  intelligible.  I  can  fully  understand 
it.  But  contrary  to  this,  is  another  doctrine  which  teaches 
that  the  sacraments  confer  more  grace,  giving  an  increase  of 
grace ;  so  that  after  receiving  a  sacrament,  we  have  more 
holiness  than  before.  Now,  among  these  sacraments,  which 
thus  confer  an  increase  of  grace,  is  matrimony  ;  and  therefore 
the  sacrament  of  matrimony  confers  a  larger  amount  of  the 
grace  of  holiness  than  before.  Here,  then,  is  the  contradiction. 
Celibacy  is  held  to  be  a  state  more  holy  than  matrimony. 
And  yet  matrimony,  as  a  hving  sacrament,  confers  more  holy 
grace  on  the  married ;  though  all  the  while  it  is  a  state  less 
holy  than  celibacy ; — this  contradiction,  I  said,  has  never  yet 
been  explained  to  my  satisfaction. 

Some  of  those  present  seemed  greatly  amused  at  this  con- 
tradiction ;  and  t]  ough  I  paused  for  an  explanation,  my  op- 


110  EVENINGS   "WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

ponent  had  nothing  to  offer,  I  therefore  said  that  I  would 
direct  attention  to  a  curious  contradiction  involved  in  the  sup- 
posed sacrament  of  extreme  unction.  When  we  ask  of  what 
value  it  is,  and  what  special  work  does  it  accomplish  on  the 
believer,  they  reply  that  it  takes  away  the  "  relics  or  remain- 
ders" of  sins,  which  had  not  been  taken  away  by  he  previous 
sacraments.  Now  this  language  implies  an  impeachment  of 
the  efficiency  of  the  preceding  absolution,  whether  in  the 
administration  of  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  or  in 
the  sacrament  of  penance  ;  for  if  that  absolution  was  com- 
plete, valid,  and  effective,  it  must  have  absolved  all  the  sins ; 
and  yet  it  is  now  said  that  extreme  unction  takes  away  the 
"  relics  or  remainders"  of  sins  !  Either  the  absolution  was 
eflfective,  and  then  the  extreme  unction  is  useless,  or  the 
extreme  unction  was  effective,  and  then  the  absolution  is 
worthless.  And  so  again  there  seems  a  contradiction  between 
extreme  unction  and  Purgatory  ;  for  if  extreme  unction  took 
away  all  the  "  relics  or  remainders"  of  sins,  then  there  can  be 
nothing  remaining  for  Purgatory  to  purge  away.  And  if 
there  be  any  thing  for  Purgatory  to  remove,  it  plainly  implies 
that  neither  the  absolution  has  taken  away  all  the  sins,  nor 
extreme  unction  all  the  "  relics  or  remainders,"  or  there  cer- 
tainly could  have  been  nothing  at  least  of  the  guilt  for  pur- 
gatory to  remove. 

All  this  seemed  plain  enough,  and  yet  on  asking  my  op- 
ponent to  resolve  the  apparent  contradiction,  he  evidently  was 
embarrassed.  He  said,  in  reference  to  Purgatory,  that  it  purged 
away  the  suftering  or  penance — the  temporal  punishment  due 
for  the  sins,  and  not  the  guilt  of  the  sin.  This,  he  said,  was 
removed  by  the  sacraments.  As  to  the  other  part  of  the  dif- 
ficulty, however,  he  was  perfectly  silent. 

A  shrewd  man,  who  was  present,  asked  him  whether  the 
absolution  given  by  the  priest  did  not  take  away  all  the  guilt, 
and  whether,  when  the  sick  man  had  received  the  commu- 
nion, in  a  fit  state  of  mind — that  is,  confessed  and  contrite, 
all  the  guilt  of  his  sins  was  not  removed  ?  He  said  he  much 
wished  for  an  answer  to  that  question. 


THE   HOLINESS    OF   THE    CHURCH.  Ill 

Our  friend  was  sadly  perplexed  at  this,  especially  when 
thus  put  to  him  by  one  of  his  co-religionists,  but  he  continued 
silent ;  so  the  question  Avas  repeated,  and  all  present  watched 
for  an  explanation,  but  it  never  came.  They  were  evidently 
disappointed. 

I  suggested  our  passing  to  the  third  mark  of  holiness. 

He  said  that  there  could  be  no  dispute  on  that  point,  for 
the  Protestants  could  make  no  claim  to  the  holy  saints.  The 
Protestant  Church  has  never  produced  one  single  holy  saint. 
She  might  boast  of  Martin  Luther,  who  broke  his  vows  of 
celibacy  and  married  a  nun,  who  also  broke  her  vows ;  she 
might  boast  of  Henry  VHI.  with  his  multitude  of  wives,  but 
she  could  not  produce  one  single  holy  saint.  Now  the  Church 
of  Rome  produced  all  the  saints ;  she  is  holy,  for  she  is  the 
blessed  mother  of  all  the  saints  ;  all  the  saints  were  members 
of  the  Church  of  Rome,  belonged  to  her  communion,  and 
held  all  her  articles  of  faith. 

This  statement — apparently  made  in  a  tone  to  regain  lost 
influence — was  not  without  some  influence  upon  our  hearers, 
and  I  saw  that  they  were  waiting  for  my  reply.  I  merely 
asked  him  to  be  so  kind  as  to  repeat  for  me  the  "  Confiteor," 
or  form  of  confession. 

He  complied. — "  I  confess  to  Almighty  God,  to  the  blessed 
Virgin,"  etc. 

And  now,  said  I,  that  you  have  so  kindly  given  to  me  the 
names  of  the  Virgin  Mary  and  the  principal  Apostles,  the 
names  of  those  you  call  the  queen  of  saints,  and  chief  and 
greatest  of  all  the  saints,  I  should  like  to  know  whether  they 
belonged  to  the  Church  of  Rome  1  This  question  elicited  a 
smile  that  showed  how  all  present  felt  its  point.  I  therefore 
continued.  We  never  read  that  the  Virgin  Mary  was  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Church  of  Rome.  The  Scriptures  speak  of  her 
only  at  Jerusalem.  We  never  read  that  John  the  Baptist  was 
ever  at  Rome.  The  Scriptures  speak  of  him  only  nigh  to 
Jerusalem.  As  to  Peter,  and  Paul,  and  James,  and  John,  and 
all  the  Apostles,  we  never  read  of  them  as  members  of  the 
Church  of  Rome.     Some  of  them  may  have  visited  that  city ; 


112  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

but  we  read  of  tliem  all  in,  the  Scriptures,  as  members  of  the 
fii'st  of  all  churches,  the  Church  of  Jerusalem. 

He  acknowledged  this  so  far  as  the  Virgin  Mary  and  John 
the  Baptist  were  concerned  ;  and  added  that  he  did  not  mean 
in  what  he  had  said  to  refer  to  them,  but  only  to  the  later 
saints — St.  Augustine,  St.  Cyprian,  St.  Chrysostom,  St.  Igna- 
sius,  St.  Ambrose,  and  to  such  holy  and  blessed  ones  as  St. 
Dominic,  St.  Francis,  St.  Bernard.  All  these  belonged  to  the 
Church  of  Rome.  They  all  lived  and  died  before  the  Protest- 
ant Reformation. 

I  am  sure,  I  replied,  with  all  possible  courtesy,  you  will  at 
once  acknowledge  your  mistake  here,  when  I  ask  you  of  what 
place  St.  Augustine  was  the  bisKop  ? 

He  replied — Hippo,  in  Africa. 

And,  I  continued — St.  Chrysostom,  where  was  he  bishop  ? 

He  replied  at  once — Constantinople. 

Then,  said  I,  you  will  at  once  acknowledge  that  neither  one 
nor  the  other  belonged  to  the  Church  of  Rome.  Hippo  was  in 
Africa,  and  St.  Augustine  was  a  bishop  of  the  ancient  African 
Church,  and  not  of  the  Roman  Church.  And,  as  Constanti- 
nople was  then,  and  is  still  the  chief  city  of  the  Greek  or 
Eastern  Church,  so  St.  Chrysostom  belonged  to  the  Greek  or 
Eastern  Church,  and  not  to  the  Roman  or  Western  Church. 
And  so  with  many  others  of  these  saints  ;  they  never  belonged 
to  the  Church  of  Rome.  But  as  for  the  so-called  saints  of 
later  times,  I  see  no  force  in  the  argument,  and  for  this  reason 
— all  these  so-called  saints  are  saints  of  her  own  choosing, 
and  naming,  and  canonizing ;  and  as  Protestants  do  not  pre- 
tend to  canonize  saints,  so  the  Church  of  Rome  has  it  all  to 
herself.  She  canonizes  only  her  own.  The  Pope  is  not  likely 
to  canonize  a  Protestant — any  one  not  of  his  own  commu- 
nion ;  and  therefore,  he  may  very  easily  say  that  all  the  saints 
are  members  of  his  church. 

Our  hearers  smiled  at  this,  and  seemed  to  feel  it  was  answer 
enough  to  the  argument. 

There  was  no  more  said  by  my  opponent,  and  I  proceeded 
to  argue  that  he  had  given  no  sufficient  grounds  for  his  asser- 


THE    HOLINESS    OF   THE    CHURCH.  113 

tion  that  the  Church  of  Rome  alone  had  a  right  to  regard 
herself  as  the  "one  holy  Church."  The  Protestant  churches 
could  all  claim  the  epithet  with  as  good  a  reason,  if  the  ques- 
tion was  to  be  decided  by  holiness  of  doctrine — holiness  of 
sacraments — or  holiness  of  members. 

But,  said  one  of  those  present,  a  church  that  came  from 
Martin  Luther  and  Henry  VIIL,  could  not  be  a  holy  church ; 
for  one  broke  his  vows  and  was  a  perjured  man,  and  the  other 
was  a  man  of  lust  who  murdered  his  wives.  They  were  a 
queer  sort  of  saints. 

I  replied  to  this  man,  that  Martin  Luther  was  a  Roman 
Catholic  priest  or  monk — that  he  had  taken  the  usual  vows 
against  marrying — that  he  lived  at  a  time  when  priests  and 
monks,  though  they  did  not  marry  wives  of  their  own,  were 
disgracefully  intimate  with  the  wives  of  other  men — that 
Martin  Luther  saw  this  with  his  own  eyes,  and  knew  it  was  the 
common  practice  of  his  brother  priests  and  monks,  and 
thought  it  better  that  they  should  have  wives — honestly  have 
wives  of  their  own  than  dishonestly  live  with  the  wives  of 
other  men — that  thinking  this  he  resolved  to  many,  and  so 
married  one  who  had  been  a  nun,  and  who  preferred  living 
honestly  and  modestly  as  his  lawful  wife,  to  living  dishonestly 
and  immodestly,  as  did  too  many  of  her  sister-nuns.  And,  I 
added,  as  for  Henry  VHL,  it  is  not  for  me  or  any  Protestant 
to  defend  him.  He  was  born  of  Roman  Catholic  parents — 
baptized  in  the  Church  of  Rome — educated  as  a  Roman 
Catholic — ascended  the  throne  as  a  member  of  the  Church  of 
Rome — wrote  a  book  in  support  of  the  seven  sacraments,  and 
in  it  abused  Martin  Luther  to  the  utmost — put  Protestants  to 
death  for  not  believing  transubstantiation — died,  leaving 
money  in  his  will  for  masses  for  his  soul  in  Purgatory.  The 
wretched  man  was  a  Roman  Catholic  born,  bred,  educated ; — 
and  quarreled  only  with  Rome  on  the  subject  of  the  Pope's 
authority.  He  broke  with  the  Pope  on  the  subject  of  his  au- 
thority, but  always  held  the  doctrines  of  the  Church  of  Rome. 
Whatever  were  his  faults,  they  were  the  faults  of  his  Roman 
Catholic  e'^lucation. 


114  EVENINGS    ■WITH   THE    ROMANISTS. 

But  have  you  ever  heard  of  some  of  the  Popes  of  the 
Church  of  Rome  ?  The  world  has  never  in  all  the  times  of 
heathenism  known  such  monsters  of  vice,  filthiness,  savage- 
ness,  and  atrocity,  as  some  of  them.  There  was  no  sin  that 
could  be  named  that  was  not  perpetrated  by  some  of  them. 

O,  but,  exclaimed  our  friend,  we  don't  look  upon  the  Popes 
personally  as  infallible.  They  may  have  been  very  bad  men, 
as  private  men,  and  yet  as  the  head  of  the  church  they  may 
have  been  infallible. 

I  said  the  question  was  not  as  to  their  infallibility,  but  if 
it  be  objected  against  Protestants,  that  Martin  Luther  married 
a  nun,  and  that  Henry  VIII.  was  a  monster  of  crime,  I  an- 
swer that  there  were  twenty  popes  incomparably  worse  in  all 
vice  and  immorality,  and  in  the  perpetration  of  the  most 
bloody  and  atrocious  crimes.  But,  I  added,  neither  church  is 
to  be  judged  by  the  bad  men  that  may  be  found  within  them. 
They  must  be  tried  by  the  word  of  God.  The  great  question 
for  our  churches  is,  whether  they  hold  the  holy  doctrines  and 
practice,  the  holy  discipline  taught  in  holy  word  of  our  holy 
God — whether  they  teach  the  people  holiness  of  doctrine  and 
holiness  of  practice ;  and  so  teach  them  that  the  people  re- 
ceive holy  doctrines,  and  carry  out  holy  practice  in  their  lives. 
This  is  the  great  question  for  us  all,  and  I  said  I  would  con- 
fidently appeal  to  all  present  whether  they  did  not  think  the 
Protestant  clergy  in  their  neighborhood  at  least  as  holy,  as 
religious,  as  full  of  good  works,  and  charity  among  the  poor, 
as  any  of  the  Pioman  Catholic  clergy.  And  whether  they 
did  not  find  that  their  Protestant  neighbors  were  quite  as  holy 
and  as  moral  and  ready  to  do  good  to  all  around  them,  as 
any  of  their  Roman  Catholic  neighbors  ? 

With  one  voice  they  acknowledged  this. 

I  said,  therefore,  that  I  could  not  see  wherein  the  Church 
of  Rome  was  more  holy  than  the  Church  of  England.  And 
that  I  could  not  make  out  why  the  Church  of  England  had 
not  as  much  right  as  the  Church  of  Rome  to  be  called  "  the 
Holy  Church."  I  was  sure  of  this,  I  added,  that  God's  holy 
word — God's   Holy  Scriptures — are  the  fountain  of  all  holy 


THE    HOLINESS    OF   THE    CHURCH.  115 

knowledge ;  and  that  so  long  as  we  keep  close  to  them,  and 
read,  and  study,  and  love,  and  conform  our  hearts,  and  minds, 
and  Hves  to  them,  praying  for  the  light  and  teaching,  and 
grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  we  shall  be  members  of  that  church 
of  which  God  is  the  Father,  and  Jesus  Christ  the  Saviour, 
and  the  Holy  Ghost  the  Sanctifier. 

There  was  little  else  said  on  this  occasion,  and  I  felt  that 
the  confidence  of  the  parties  present  was  much  shaken  as  to 
the  person  who  acted  as  their  spokesman.  He  had  led  them 
to  expect  a  wonderful  triumph  over  me.  He  left  my  presence 
much  humbled. 


THE  CATHOLICITY    OF  THE    CHURCH. 

Whether  the  Church  of  England  he  the  Catholic  Church — A  Branch  of  it— Meaning 
of  the  Terms,  Church  and  Catholic — Application  of  the  Name  to  the  Church  of 
Rome — Meaning  of  the  Words  in  the  Creed — The  Invisible  as  distinct  from  the 
Visible  Church — The  gradual  Decay  and  Diminution  of  the  Church  of  Rome — 
Comparison  of  Numbers. 

In  the  times  of  much  controversy  in  Ireland,  it  was  not  un- 
common for  invitations,  somewhat  in  the  form  of  challenges 
to  public  discussion,  to  pass  between  the  opponent  churches ; 
or,  more  correctly  expressing  it,  between  the  more  active  and 
zealous  partisans  of  Romanism  and  Protestantism. 

However  strange  such  a  mode  of  procedure  may  appear  to 
some  minds,  it  had  great  attractions,  because  great  suitable- 
ness for  that  phase  of  mind  peculiar  to  the  population  of  Ire- 
land. The  clergy  who  took  an  active  lead  in  controversy  were 
universally  the  favorites  of  the  people.  They  always  regarded 
the  challenger  as  a  bold,  brave,  earnest,  and  sincere  man — as 
one  who  did  not  fear  to  let  the  light  in  upon  his  principles  or 
practices.  And  on  the  other  hand,  whenever  a  challenge  was 
refused  without  good  and  valid  cause  in  the  estimation  of  the 
people,  the  individual  fell  invariably  in  public  esteem,  as  one 
who  was  unable  to  defend  his  principles,  or  who  was  afraid  to 
have  his  practices  exposed.     It  was  a  strange  state  of  things. 

I  undertook  the  charge  of  a  parish  for  a  few  weeks  for  a 
brother  curate  who  was  weak  in  health.  The  Roman  Catholic 
Priest  was  supposed  to  be  a  bold,  fearless,  and  able  man,  who 
was  constantly  from  the  altar  denouncing  the  Protestant  clergy 
and  Protestant  people,  pouring  ridicule  in  unsparing  measure 


THE    CATHOLICITY    OF    THE    CHURCH.  117 

upon  their  religion,  cliallenging  by  name  the  weak  and  con- 
sumptive, and  indeed  dying  man,  who  was  curate  of  the  parish, 
and  who,  whatever  was  his  will,  was  wholly  without  the 
physical  strength  requisite  for  such  a  strife. 

I  was  fully  aware  of  the  proceedings  of  this  polemical  priest, 
and  of  the  sort  of  moral  influence  he  had  obtained  over  the 
people  by  his  fearless  bearing.  I  watched  for  the  opportunity 
to  diminish  it ;  but,  before  I  could  possibly  take  any  step  in 
the  affair,  I  was  startled  by  the  visit  of  five  Roman  Catholics, 
all  respectable  peasants  of  the  place,  who  announced  them- 
selves as  deputed  by  a  large  number  of  their  co-religionists,  to 
request  me  to  accept  the  challenge  of  their  -pne&t ;  expressing 
themselves  as  anxious  for  inquiry,  and  prepared  to  bear  me 
through  it.  I  felt  that  my  position  was  a  strange  one,  con- 
sidering the  parties  who  made  the  request.  And  being  then 
young,  zealous,  ardent,  and  confident  in  the  cause  I  had  to 
defend,  I  acceded,  perhaps,  rather  hastily  to  the  request. 

The  very  same  evening  the  priest  delivered  a  controversial 
lecture  in  the  parish  chapel  against  the  doctrines  of  the  Prot- 
estants ;  and  again,  as  on  former  occasions,  threw  down  a 
challenge  to  all  Protestant  clergymen  to  defend  their  church 
against  him  ;  stating  thai  he  would  not  go  to  public  meetings, 
but  would  there,  in  that  very  chapel,  receive  any  Protestant 
clergyman  and  discuss  the  subject  before  his  whole  congrega- 
tion. 

This  challenge  causing  no  slight  sensation  in  the  neighbor- 
hood, was  immediately  communicated  to  me,  by  the  same 
parties.  I  declared  my  readiness  to  accept  it,  and  only  waited 
till  the  priest  should  name  the  subject  for  discussion.  On  the 
following  week  he  challenged  me  from  the  altar,  to  prove  the 
Church  of  England  to  be  the  "  holy  Catholic  Church,"  men- 
tioned in  the  Apostle's  creed.  I  replied  to  the  deputation  wl  o 
informed  me  of  this,  that  I  could  not  undertake  to  prove  her 
to  be  "  ihe  holy  Catholic  Church,"  because  I  could  not  prove 
that  a  part  was  the  whole  ;  but  that  I  would  undertake  to  prove 
that  it  was  a  part,  a  portion,  a  branch  of  "  the  holy  Catholic 
Church."     I  pointed  out  to  them  the  reason  of  this  distinction, 


118  EVENINGS    WITH   THE    ROMANISTS. 

as  I  could  not  prove  that  any  particular  diurcL,  was  the  uni' 
versal  church — the  Church  of  Christ.  They  were  perfectly 
satisfied  with  this,  which  they  seemed  fully  to  understand  ;  and 
I  therefore  declared  my  intention  of  attending  at  the  Roman 
Catholic  chapel  on  the  next  evening  of  lecture,  and  entering 
on  the  discussion,  if  they  and  their  priest  were  so  disposed. 

I  went  there  at  the  usual  hour,  accompanied  by  another 
clergyman.  As  I  approached  the  chapel,  the  former  deputa- 
tion, accompanied  by  a  crowd  of  other  Roman  Catholics,  came 
forward  to  meet  and  receive  me,  and  taking  me  bodily  into 
their  center,  so  as  none  but  themselves  could  touch  me,  they 
entered.  The  whole  congregation,  who  were  all  standing  and 
listening  to  the  controversial  lecture  of  their  priest,  instantly 
divided,  making  an  open  way  for  the  deputation  and  myself 
till  was  I  safely  deposited,  face  to  face  with  the  priest,  at  the 
foot  of  the  altar.  That  the  priest  was  taken  by  surprise,  was 
very  apparent.  He  had  never  expected  such  a  scene.  He 
continued  his  address  for  a  short  time,  and  then  in  a  few  con- 
fused and  hurried  sentences  concluded  his  lecture,  and  was 
withdrawing  to  the  vestry — perhaps  to  prepare  for  the  coming 
discussion.  According  to  an  arrangement,  already  made  with 
the  deputation,  I  immediately  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  priest, 
as  he  was  withdrawing,  a  letter — a  written  acceptance  of  his 
proposal,  and  expressing  my  willingness  to  enter  on  the  dis- 
cussion at  that  moment  before  the  congregation.  The  expect- 
ation and  excitement  of  the  peojile  was  intense,  as  they  saw 
him  reading  my  letter,  and  as  they  waited  for  the  discussion 
which  to  them  seemed  inevitable,  after  all  his  previous  chal- 
lenges. He  read  the  letter  carefully,  and  slowly  folded  it  up 
— said  with  a  loud  voice,  that  the  Church  of  Rome  was  "  the 
holy  Catholic  Church" — that  they  were  already  in  possession 
of  the  church,  and  did  not  need  any  further  inquiry  or  search 
after  it — for  that  they  need  not  search  for  what  they  had  al- 
ready found  !  And  saying  this,  he  instantly  left  the  altar,  and 
withdrew  to  the  vestry. 

I  shall  never  forget  the  scene  at  this  moment.  The  deep 
disappointment  of  the  people — the  strong  resentment  at  what 


THE    CATHOLICITT   OF    THE    CHURCH.  119 

they  called  his  fears — the  bold  request  of  many  that  I  would 
take  his  place  at  the  altar,  and  address  them — and  above  all 
the  excited  and  stormy  character  of  the  disordered  congrega- 
tion, were  almost  appalling.  I  felt  unnerved  at  the  moment, 
and  almost  regretted  having  gone  so  far,  till  higher  thoughts 
came  to  my  aid,  and  I  felt  that  He,  whom  T  desired  to  serve, 
could  sustain  me — and  he  did  both  counsel  and  sustain  me. 
It  flashed  across  my  mind  that  if  I  accepted  the  invitation  of 
the  people,  and  addressed  them  in  that  place,  it  would  be  put- 
ting myself  into  the  power  of  the  law,  which  would  be  most 
unwise ;  I  therefore  declined,  but  added  to  those  about  me 
that  I  would  withdraw  from  the  chapel  and  address  them  out- 
side. We  withdrew,  and  being  accompanied  by  about  one 
third  of  the  congregation,  we  entered  a  large  school-house,  and 
there  I  addressed  at  some  length,  a  deeply  attentive  congrega- 
tion of  several  hundreds  of  Roman  Catholics. 

The  Priest  never  again  delivered  a  challenge,  or  even  an- 
other lecture  against  the  Protestant  church. 

This  circumstance  led  to  the  visits  of  many  persons,  anx- 
ious for  information  on  certain  questions  of  controversy. 

It  is  of  vast  importance  to  the  right  conduct  of  our  contro- 
versy with  Rome,  that  we  be  very  careful  as  to  our  statements. 
That  the  Church  of  England  is  a  part  or  branch  of  the  Church 
of  Christ,  is  a  most  certain  truth.  That  she  is  the  Church  of 
Christ  is  as  certainly  an  untruth.  This  distinction  is  very  ob- 
vious, and  yet  from  a  neglect  of  this  distinction  among  Prot- 
estants, they  have  fallen  into  inextricable  difficulties.  And  the 
Romanists  know  this,  and  therefore  constantly  ask  us  to  prove 
that  our  church  is  the  Church  of  Christ.  The  answer  on  all 
such  occasions,  should  be,  that  we  would  undertake  to  prove 
our  national  and  particular  church  to  be,  not  the  church  of 
Christ,  but  a  Church  of  Christ,  as  being  a  part  or  branch — a 
particular  church  among  the  many,  the  aggregate  of  which 
constitutes  the  one  Catholic  or  universal  church. 

In  a  discussion  on  this  subject,  on  which  I  was  at  this  time 
engaged  in  private,  it  was  urged  by  iny  opponent  that  the 
church  of  Rome  had  extended  through   all   time,  and   had 


120  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

spread  over  all  nations — that  in  this  resi-)ect  she  had  far  ex- 
ceeded all  other  churches,  which  were  of  more  modern  growth, 
and  of  more  limited  and  merely  local  extent — that  for  antiqui- 
ty and  extent  no  other  church  can  hold  comparison  with  her, 
— and  that  as  she  alone  can  make  any  claim  to  he  Catholic, 
that  is,  universal,  so  she  alone  is  "  the  Catholic  Church"  of  the 
creeds. 

The  answer  I  have  ever  found  most  effectual  to  this,  is  a 
fair  explanation  of  the  terms.  I  have  therefore  laid  doAvn  two 
things : 

First,  I  have  called  to  mind  that  the  word  "  Church,"  as  it 
occurs  in  Holy  Scripture,  simply  means  an  assembly  or  con- 
gregation, even  a  civil  or  political  assembly,  as  in  Acts  xix. 
39,  and  41,  when  it  was  merely  a  civil  meeting: — that  it  is 
sometimes  applied  to  the  httle  congTcgation  of  Christians  as- 
sembled in  a  private  house,  as  in  Col.  iv.  15  :  sometimes  to 
the  larger  congregations  of  Christian  persons  assembled  in 
one  town  or  city,  as  in  Rom.  xvi.  1 ;  sometimes  to  the  aggre- 
gate of  the  several  congregations,  that  may  be  found  in  any 
province  or  country ;  as  in  1  Cor.  xvi.  1 .  And  sometimes  it 
is  applied  to  the  aggregate  of  all  these  particular  churches  of 
Christ,  as  constituting  the  Church  of  God, — the  church  of  the 
redeemed — "  the  church  militant  here  on  earth,"  while  at 
other  times  it  has  a  wider  range,  embracing  both  the  Church 
below,  and  the  Church  above,  that  is,  the  universal  or  Catho- 
lic Church  of  Christ,  "  the  general  assembly  and  Church  of 
the  first-born,  whose  names  are  written  in  Heaven,"  as  Heb. 
xii.  23. 

Secondly,  I  have  endeavored  to  settle  well  and  clearly,  the 
meaning  of  the  phrase  "the  Catholic  Church."  The  word 
"  catholic"  signifies  "  all  "  or  "  whole  "  or  "  universal."  So . 
that  it  is  clear,  that  "  the  Catholic  Church"  does  not  mean, 
merely  a  particular  church,  assembled  in  any  private  house, 
nor  merely  a  particular  church,  assembling  in  any  special  town 
or  city,  nor  merely  any  aggregate  of  churches,  collected  in  any 
one  countrj',  or  province,  or  nation.  It  does  not  mean  any 
particular   church   or   churches,  but   "all,"  the  "whole,"  or 


THE    CATHOLICITS    OF    THE    CHURCH.  121 

"  universal,"  of  the  Churclies  of  Christ,  taken  in  the  aggregate 
or  collective  aspect. 

The  necessary  consequence  of  this,  as  I  have  endeavored  to 
press  on  my  opponents,  is,  that  if  the  Church  of  England  called 
herself  "  the  Catholic  Church,"  it  would  be  an  unwarrantable 
assumption  in  makius-  herself  the  whole,  universal  Church,  and 
therefore,  when  persons  talk  of  an  Anglo-Catholic  Church,  that 
is  of  an  English  universal  Church,  they  only  betray  their  own 
inaccuracy ;  "  knowing  neither  what  they  say,  nor  whereof 
they  afHrm ;"  unless  they  merely  mean  a  particular  church  in 
union  with  all  the  other  churches.  And  it  is  precisely  the 
same  with  the  Church  of  Rome.  When  she  calls  herself  "  the 
Catholic  Church,"  it  is  an  assumption  as  unwarrantable  as  it 
is  inconsistent ;  for  as  her  very  name  implies,  she  is  only  a 
local  or  national  church,  a  particular  church,  and  therefore 
can  not  possibly  be  the  universal  church,  unless  she  merely 
means  that  she  is  in  connection  with  all  the  other  churches. 
And  though,  from  the  unwillingness  among  us  to  quarrel  about 
names,  we  generally  allow  her  to  call  herself  any  names  she 
pleases,  yet  this  name  by  which  she  is  so  generally  called — 
"  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,"  is  really  tantamount  to  calling 
her  "  the  particular  universal  church." 

It  is  often  argued  by  the  advocates  of  the  Church  of  Rome, 
that  the  phrase  of  the  Creed,  "  I  believe  in  the  holy  Catholic 
Church,"  must  have  some  more  definite  application — applica- 
tion to  some  one  visible  and  outward  church,  which  is  univer- 
sal or  catholic ;  and  they  can  recognize  none  worthy  of  the 
name  but  the  Church  of  Rome.  The  answer  to  this  is,  that 
when  we  employ  these  words  in  the  Creed,  and  say  that  we 
believe  there  is  a  Catholic  Church,  we  are  bound  to  say  cl-early 
and  distinctly  what  we  believe.  As  we  have  already  settled 
clearly  that  it  is  not  a  belief  in  any  one  local,  national,  partic- 
ular church,  neither  the  Greek  Church,  nor  the  Roman  Church, 
nor  the  Scotch  Church,  nor  the  English  Church ;  so  we  must 
next  settle  as  clearly,  and  have  it  closely  settled  in  our  minds, 
what  we  do  believe. 

In  order  to  do  this,  we  must  be  careful — we  can  not  be  too 

G 


122  EVENINGS    WITH   THE    EOMA  CISTS. 

careful,  for  it  is  the  key  to  tlie  whole  subject — to  remember 
that  the  words  occur  in  the  creed,  and  that  a  creed,  as  the 
word  means,  is  a  series  of  truths  or  things  in  which  you  be- 
lieve. They  are  not, things  which  you  see,  but  things  which 
you  see  not — not  things  visible,  but  things  invisible.  It  is 
only  in  things  unseen  and  invisible  we  are  said  to  believe,  for 
things  visible  or  seen  we  are  said  to  see  and  know,  and  not 
merely  to  believe  in  them.  K,  therefore,  you  examine  the  ar- 
ticles of  the  creed,  you  will  at  once  perceive  that  they  all  are 
things  which  we  have  not  seen  and  can  not  see,  being  things 
unseen  and  invisible.  "  I  believe  in  God,"  He  is  invisible  ; 
"  the  maker  of  heaven  and  earth  ;"  He  was  unseen  of  us  when 
he  made  it.  "  And  in  Jesus  Christ  his  only  Son" — we  have 
not  seen  him,  and  yet  we  believe  in  him ;  and  so  on  with 
every  other  article  separately.  They  all  are  declarations  as  to 
what  we  have  not  seen,  but  still  we  believe.  "  I  believe  in 
the  Holy  Ghost,"  we  see  him  not ;  "  The  communion  of 
saints,"  we  see  not  the  saints  above,  and  we  know  not  who  are 
the  saints  even  here  below  ;  "  the  forgiveness  of  sins"  is  a 
privilege  invisible,  and  can  only  be  believed  and  felt ;  "  the 
resurrection  of  the  body"  is  that  which  we  have  never  seen 
and  yet  we  believe  it  shall  be  ;  "  and  the  life  everlasting"  is 
likewise  a  thing  unseen  and  invisible  now,  but  one  which  we 
believe  and  expect. 

Thus  all  the  articles  concern  unseen  and  invisible  things. 
And  inasmuch  as  "  the  Catholic  Church"  is  placed  in  the 
midst  of  those  articles,  so  it  evidently  means  that  unseen  and 
invisible  body  of  redeemed  and  saved  souls,  both  of  the  church 
above,  and  of  the  church  below,  which  is  the  true  church  of 
Jesus  Christ ;  it  is  that  which  we  usually  speak  of,  as  the 
spiritual  and  invisible  church.  It  can  not  mean  that  which  is 
called  the  "visible  church,"  the  body  of  baptized  and  profess- 
ing Christians  whom  we  see,  and  can  easily  see,  because  they 
are  visible.  It  can  not  possibly  be  this,  for  as  the  whole  creed 
embodies  only  those  things  which  are  unseen  and  invisible  to 
us  now,  so  it  can  not  on  any  honest  system  of  interpretation 
be  applied  to  any  or  to  all  the  seen  and  visible  churches  on 


THE    CATHOLICITY    OF   THK    CHURCH.  123 

earth.  The  article  of  the  creed,  therefore,  must  mean  a  be- 
lief in  that  body  of  faithful  ones,  Avho  are  unseen,  and  un- 
known of  human  eye,  but  ■who  are  seen  and  known  of  the 
Saviour :  "  The  Lord  knoweth  them  that  are  his,"  and  who 
constitute  "  the  general  assembly  and  church  of  the  first-born, 
whose  names  are  written  in  heaven."  Thus  the  church  tri- 
umphant above  and  the  church  still  militant  on  earth — these, 
whose  individual  members  are  unseen  and  unknown  by  us,  are 
the  "  Catholic  Church." 

I  have  found  this  explanation  often  satisfactory  to  inquiring 
minds.  And  it  has  been  frequently  acknowledged  to  me  that 
it  resolved  what  had  long  been  a  considerable  difficulty.  But 
there  is  a  great  variety  of  minds,  and  very  often  I  have  met 
with  opponents  whom  nothing  could  satisfy.  And  who,  study- 
ing Milner's  "  End  of  Controversy"  much  more  than  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  go  on  to  argue  that  the  members  of  the  Church  of 
Rome  are  always  called  Catholics,  and  their  church  is  always 
called  the  Catholic  Church  even  by  Protestants  themselves  ; 
and  that  as  we  traverse  our  streets,  this  desisfnation  is  so  well 
and  universally  known  that  all  who  ask  for  the  "  Catholic" 
church  would  at  once  be  directed  to  the  Roman  church. 

The  answer  I  have  usually  made  to  this  is,  that  ih^xQ  is 
some  ti'uth  in  this,  but  all  that  is  true  in  it  has  arisen  out  of 
our  unwillingness  to  quarrel  about  words  or  names.  We  feel 
that  they  are  not  Catholics,  and  ought  not  to  be  called  Catho- 
lics ;  but  if  we  call  them  Romanists,  as  belonging  to  the 
Church  of  Rome,  they  take  offense  and  are  angry  with  us. 
If  we  call  them  Papists,  as  followers  of  the  papacy,  they  again 
.take  offense  and  are  still  more  angry  with  us.  And  thus, 
from  our  kindly  and  Christian  unwillingness  to  give  offense, 
we  prefer  calling  them  by  a  name,  which  yet  we  feel  to  be  in- 
appropriate, inaccurate,  and  objectionable.  We  call  them 
Catholics,  simply  to  avoid  giving  them  offense,  and  then  they 
take  advantage  of  this  and  argue  that  we  recognize  them  as 
Catholics  !  This  is  but  a  poor  return  for  our  kindness  and  un- 
willingness to  offend  them. 

I  have  found  this  frequently  an  adequate  answer  to  persons 


124  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    HOMANISTS. 

who  have  any  generosity  of  sentiment,  and  who  are  not  argii- 
ing  merely  as  partisans,  prepared  to  deny  every  thing  and  to 
assert  any  thing.  But,  simple  as  the  answer  is,  it  is  surprising 
how  many  are  influenced  by  the  argument. 

But  how  explain  the  fact — it  forms  an  important  argument 
in  the  pages  of  Milner — that  as  we  traverse  our  streets  and 
ask  for  the  Catholic  church,  we  are  sure  to  be  directed  by  every 
one  to  the  Roman  church  ? 

I  have  been  surprised  at  times  at  the  confidence  with  which 
some — indeed  many  persons — have  argued  thus.  And  I  have 
answered  it  by  a  parallel,  saying :  If  any  man,  traversing  our 
streets  or  wandering  in  the  fields,  ask  for  the  church,  he  will 
be  sure  to  be  directed  to  the  Protestant  church  of  the  parish. 
This  would  be  invariably  the  same.  And  thus  I  have  argued, 
that  if  on  asking  for  the  Catholic  church,  one  is  directed  to 
the  Roman  church,  and  this  is  to  be  held  a  proof  that  the 
Church  of  Rome  is  Catholic  ;  then  the  other  fact,  namely,  that 
if,  on  inquiring  for  the  church,  one  is  always  directed  to  the 
Protestant  church,  it  must  as  fairly  be  deemed  a  proof  that 
the  Church  of  England  is  the  Church  of  Christ.  The  truth  is, 
that  such  a  process  of  reasoning  on  either  side  is  trifling. 

The  argument,  however,  that  more  than  all  else  has  been 
urged  upon  me  is,  that  the  Church  of  Rome  was  universal,  as 
the  word  "  Catholic"  implies — that  she  was  universal  through 
all  past  centuries  and  all  present  centuries,  and  is  thus  the 
Catholic  or  universal  church. 

The  answer  I  gave  to  this  is  as  follows  : 

The  Church  of  Rome  never  was  universal,  and  certainly  is 
not  now  xmiversal ;  and  every  century  sees  her  shorn  of  some 
of  her  provinces,  so  as  that  she  is  steadily  and  constantly  los- 
ing her  relative  position.  If  ever,  at  any  period  of  history, 
she  had  been  universal,  it  is  a  certain  fact  that  she  is  now  less 
able  to  claim  that  epithet  than  at  any  former  epoch.  In  the 
first  place,  she  does  not  keep  pace  with  the  steady  gTo-\vth  of 
population  ;  inasmuch  as  the  population  of  the  old  countries 
where  she  prevailed,  as  Italy,  Spain,  France,  Austria,  has  not 
increased  in  the  same  proportion  as  those  countries  wherein 


THE    CATHOLICITY    OF   THE    CH0RCH.  125 

Protestautism  prevails,  as  in  Prussia,  England,  and  America. 
In  the  next  place,  the  stream  of  emigration,  at  this  moment 
extending  population  over  the  world,  is  mainly  bearing  on  its 
surface  the  Anglo-Saxon  institutions,  princi2-)les,  and  religion, 
which  will  thus  be  broad-cast  over  the  whole  of  the  new  world. 
America,  India,  Australia  are  illustrations  of  this. 

But  we  can  say  even  more  than  this.  Assuming  her  own 
statement  as  a  basis  of  argument,  namely,  that  the  Church  of 
Rome  was  xmiversal ;  she  must  acknowledge  and  does  ac- 
knowledge two  great  defalcations — two  gigantic  secessions 
from  her  pale — two  bodies  of  such  vast  magnitude  as  that  the 
total  of  such  seceders  or  separatists  is  more  numerous  than  all 
that  have  remained  to  her ;  so  that  assuming  that  she  once 
was  universal,  as  she  asserts,  she  can  now  make  no  claim  what- 
ever to  that  title.  The  two  great  sections  of  the  Christian 
family  to  which  I  here  refer,  are  the  Greek  or  Eastern 
Churches,  and  the  Protestant  or  Western  Churches.  Russia, 
Turkey,  Greece,  and  all  Asia  have  rejected  her  claims  and  de- 
nied her  authority  ;  Sweden,  Norway,  Denmark,  Holland,  one 
half  of  Germany,  with  England  and  North  America,  have  all 
rejected  her  authority. 

The  Church  of  Rome  pronounces  the  former  to  be  a  schis- 
matic separation ;  and  the  latter  to  be  a  heretical  secession. 
The  former,  at  whatever  date  it  may  be  supposed  to  have 
commenced,  was  certainly  consummated  in  the  fifteenth  cen- 
tury :  while  the  latter  commenced  in  the  sixteenth  century, 
and  is  still  extending  its  influence.  All  this  is  her  own  state- 
ment, and  assuming  all  this  to  be  true,  the  Church  of  Rome 
can  no  longer  be  regarded  as  universal.  The  total  number  of 
professing  Christians  in  the  world  is,  as  accurately  as  can  be 
estimated,  305,000,000.  By  the  Eastern  separation  she  has 
lost  seventy-seven  millions  of  souls,  that  being  the  estimated 
numbers  of  the  Greek  or  Eastern  Churches  at  the  present  day. 
By  the  Western  se  cession  she  has  lost  ninety-five  millions  of 
souls,  for  such  is  the  estimated  number  of  the  Protestants  of 
Europe  and  America  at  present.  By  these  two  therefore  com- 
bined, shi  has  lost  one  hundred  and  seventy-two  millions  of 


126  EVENINGS    WITH   THE    ROMANISTS. 

Christians,  wliile  she  retains  all  over  the  world  only  one  hun- 
dred and  thirty-three  millions  within  her  pale.  Even  in  the 
old  countries  of  Europe,  according  to  her  own  calculations, 
she  is  now  in  a  very  decided  minority.  By  the  last  census 
taken  in  the  several  states  of  Europe,  the  whole  population  in 
1851  Avas  256,041,920;  and  according  to  the  last  statement 
published,  in  behalf  of  the  Church  of  Rome  (published  by 
Battersby,  in  1851),  she  claims  of  these  only  124,993,961, 
that  is,  less  than  one  half!  This  is  her  own  claim.  It  ought 
to  have  been  only  117,000,000  on  au  accurate  calculation. 
And  thus,  although  as  a  single  communion,  she  has  a  larger 
number  of  members  than  any  other  Church — yet,  taking  the 
wide  field  of  Christendom  as  a  whole — taking  the  professing 
family  and  visible  church  of  Christ  as  a  whole — she  is,  at  this 
moment,  in  a  very  decided  minority.  And  the  progress  of 
events  give  significant  augury  that  ere  long,  she  shall  have 
still  less  pretensions  even  to  this  fiction  of  a  name,  for  every 
year  she  becomes  still  less  "  universal"  or  "  Catholic."  The 
wave  is  breaking  upon  her  old  embankments,  and  one  by  one 
they  are  shaken,  sink  down,  and  are  engulfed  and  carried 
away  forever. 

It  is  easy  to  imagine  this  claim  in  mediaeval  times,  when  the 
Church  of  Rome  was  in  the  fullness  of  her  meridian  splendor 
and  power  ;  there  was  then  no  other  church  in  Europe  that 
could  resist  her  efiectually.  And  yet  in  England,  and  in 
France,  and  in  Spain,  the  struggle  was  maintained  with  a 
wonderful  perseverance,  and  though  stricken  down,  its  cries 
stifled  and  its  freedom  chained,  yet  eveiy  now  and  then  it 
shook  off  its  oppressor — bravely  struggled  on  for  a  little  while, 
and  then,  again  sunk  into  the  silence  of  its  prison-house. 
Throughout  those  ages,  the  Church  of  Rome  could  lift  her 
head  like  the  palm-tree,  and  boast  herself  that  she  stood  alone 
in  the  world,  not  indeed  the  loving  mother,  but  the  powerful 
mistress  of  the  other  churches.  But  all  this  has  passed  aw\ay. 
In  the  East,  and  in  the  West,  the  national  and  particular 
churches  of  Christendom  have  at  last  risen  in  their  strength 
and  fulfilled  their  resurrection,  and  shivered  to  atoms  the 


THE    CATHOLICITr    OF    THE    CHURCH.  127 

chains  of  tlieir  bondage,  and  rent  the  Avails  of  their  prison- 
house,  so  that  now  they  are  more  numerous  than  their  former 
oppressor.  Aud,  not  content  with  their  own  emancipation, 
the  Protestant  churches  are  spoiling  her  of  her  prey,  and  the 
hundreds  of  converts  in  beautiful  Italy,  the  thousands  of  down 
stricken  Ireland,  and  the  millions  of  free-hearted  America,  are 
given  to  the  faithful,  and  loving,  and  true-hearted  labors  and 
prayers  of  the  Protestant  Churches.  The  universality  or  Cath- 
olicity of  the  Church  of  Rome  is  day  by  day  becoming  "  fine 
by  degrees  and  elegantly  less,"  and  is  destined  ere  long  to  live 
only  in  the  memories  of  the  past. 


APOSTOLICITY  OF  THE   CHURCH. 

Tho  Claim  of  the  Church  of  Rome  as  Apostolical— Meaning  of  the  Term— Founded 
by  an  Apostle  or  in  Apostolic  Times— Uselessness  of  this— The  Fate  of  many 
such  Churches- Conformity  with  the  Teaching  of  Apostles— How  this  is  Ascer- 
tainable—The  Holy  Scriptures— Tho  Apostolical  Succession— Claimed  alike  by 
all  Churches — Succession  in  the  Presbytery  or  in  the  Episcopacy. 

Among  my  Komau  Catholic  parishioners  was  a  man,  ad- 
vanced in  life,  who  had  married  a  Protestant  much  younger 
than  himself.  They  lived  very  happily  together,  and  had  sev- 
eral children.  As  was  very  usual  in  such  cases  of  mixed  mar- 
riages, all  the  children  were  baptized  by  the  Roman  Catholic 
priest ;  but  after  my  speaking  to  them  on  the  subject,  they 
were  all  sent  as  scholars  to  my  school,  and  as  attendants  at 
my  church. 

I  have  always  observed  in  the  case  of  such  mixed  marriages 
that  the  children  are  professed  as  Roman  Catholics,  or  as 
Protestants,  according  to  the  character  of  the  Protestant  cler- 
gyman of  the  parish.  K  he  is  careless,  indifferent,  inattentive 
then  the  natural  feeling  of  the  Roman  Catholic  parent,  com- 
bined with  the  silent  influence  of  the  masses  of  the  neighbor- 
ng  population,  at  once  consigns  the  children  to  the  Church  of 
Rome.  There  is  no  opposing  influence  to  counteract  this,  un- 
less the  Protestant  clergyman  influences  the  Protestant  parent. 
On  the  other  hand,  if  the  Protestant  clergyman  is  a  good,  and 
zealous,  and  attentive  man — if  he  visits  his  people  and  enters 
into  conversation  on  their  little  f^imily  affairs,  and  shows  an 
interest  in  their  well-being,  both  for  time  and  for  eternity,  he 
will  obtain  an  influence   over   the    Roman   Catholic   parent, 

4* 


1 


APOSTOLICITV    OF    THE    CHURCH.  129 

tlirougli  liis  interest  taken  iu  tlie  cliildren,  as  well  as  give  a 
moral  support  to  the  wishes  of  the  Protestant  parent.  In  such 
cases  the  children  will  be  freely  given  to  him  by  both  parents. 
'  I  have  had  large  experience  in  this  matter,  and  never  knew 
an  instance  in  which  I  did  not  secure  the  children  of  mixed 
marriages,  as  pupils  in  the  Protestant  school,  and  attend- 
ants at  the  Protestant  cliurch.  If  there  be  a  want  of  suc- 
cess in  this  matter,  it  is  generally  the  fault  of  the  clergyman 
himself. 

I  have  said  that  the  wife  of  this  Roman  Catholic  parishioner 
was  a  Protestant.  She  was  such  by  birth  and  education ;  but, 
as  her  husband  usually  attended  the  Roman  Catholic  service, 
she  remained  at  home  to  mind  the  house  and  take  charge  of 
the  children.  Her  inability  thus  to  attend  church  was  mani- 
fest, and  although  on  my  speaking  to  her  husband  on  the  sub- 
ject, he,  as  a  sensible  and  reasonable  man,  was  willing  to  do 
any  thing  that  I  could  suggest  with  reason,  yet  the  care  of  the 
little  children  placed  a  great  obstacle  in  the  way.  I  therefore 
said  to  him  one  day,  that  as  his  wife  could  not  come  to  the 
church,  so  the  church  must  come  to  his  wife.  I  said  I  would 
come  and  pray,  and  read,  and  preach  at  his  house.  He  most 
readily  accepted  my  offer,  and  thus  I  was  enabled  to  establish 
a  cottao-e  lecture  on  a  small  scale  in  his  house,  where  several 
neighboring  families,  both  Protestants  and  Romanists,  regu- 
larly attended. 

One  thing  naturally  led  to  another.  The  reading  of  the 
Scriptures,  and  my  expositions  of  them,  always  extempora- 
neous as  to  the  manner  of  delivery,  and  always  directed  to  the 
great  truths  of  the  gospel,  and  to  the  necessity  of  a  real  and 
practical  religiousness  of  life,  led  to  many  questions  and  an- 
swers, not  only  on  matters  of  great  Christian  moment  in  gen- 
eral, but  also  on  points  more  or  less  controverted  between  the 
churches.  These  questions  came  from  Romanists  and  Prot- 
estants alike.  The  man  himself  after  some  time  seemed  much 
drawn  to  the  gospel,  and  sought  private  conversation  with  me. 
He  showed  a  great  depth  of  feeling  at  times.  He  was  evidently 
thinking  of  leaving  the  Church  of  Rome.     He  saw  that  many 

6* 


130  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

others  had  openly  done  so,  and  lie  seemed  not  indisposed  to 
follow  tlieir  example. 

One  day  we  conversed  foj  a  long  time  on  the  subject  of  the 
true  Church.  Among  other  points  he  spoke  much  about  the 
apostolicity  of  the  Church  of  Rome — that  she  was  apostolical. 

I  therefore  asked  him  what  he  meant  by  the  word,  and 
Avhat  argument  he  drew  from  it  ? 

He  said  that  when  he  called  the  Church  of  Rome  an  apos- 
tolical church,  he  meant  that  she  was  as  old  as  the  apostles — 
that  she  was  founded  in  the  days  of  the  apostles — that  she  had 
received  the  gospel  from  the  mouths  of  the  apostles — and 
thus,  having  been  founded  by  the  blessed  apostle  Peter,  the 
first  bishop  and  pope  of  Rome,  she  must  be  an  apostolical 
church. 

I  asked  him  what  argument  he  meant  to  found  on  this  1  I 
said  that  I  was,  in  some  measure,  not  disposed  to  deny  it ;  but 
wished  to  know  what  he  intended  to  found  on  it. 

He  said  it  proved  the  Church  of  Rome  to  be  old — an  old 
church — the  oldest  of  all  churches. 

I  then  told  him  that  if  his  argument  was  that  the  Church 
of  Rome  was  an  old  church,  I  would  at  once  admit  it,  for  it 
was  a  very  cei'tain  truth  ;  and  that  as  founded  by  an  apostle  and 
in  the  days  of  the  apostles,  she  may  most  truly  be  called  an 
apostolical  church.     I  told  him  that — 

In  this  sense  we  see  no  objection  whatever  to  call  the 
Church  of  Rome  an  apostolic  church — she  was  founded  in 
the  days  of  the  apostles,  and  probably  by  some  of  the  apostles 
themselves.  We  may  perhaps  not  believe  what  she  says 
about  her  being  founded  by  Peter,  and  that  he  was  her  first 
bishop  or  pope,  but  we  freely  admit  her  to  have  been  founded 
in  the  days  of  the  apostles,  for  the  fact  is  stated  in  the  Holy 
Scriptures.  But,  I  added,  there  are  other  churches  equally 
apostolical ;  and,  although  she  may  claim  this  e2:)ithet  in  this 
sense,  yet  she  can  not  claim  it  exclusively.  If  she  is  an  apos- 
toHc  church,  she  is  only  one  among  many,  which  are  equally 
apostolical.  We  read  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Church  at 
Jerusale  a,  of  the  Church   at   Antioch,  of  the  churches   of 


APOSTOLICITY    OF    THE    CHURCH.  131 

Corinth,  of  Galatia,  Laodicea,  Ephesus ;  of  the  Churches  of 
Judea,  Samaria,  Macedonia,  Achaia ;  and  all  these  are  apos- 
tolical churches  in  this  sense,  for  they  are  all  founded  by 
apostles ;  and  ancient  history  records,  that  the  gospel  was 
preached  in  these  islands  in  apostolic  times,  and  as  some  his- 
torians state,  even  by  the  apostle  Paul  himself,  so  that  we  see 
no  exclusive  right  to  this  appellation  on  the  part  of  the 
Church  of  Rome.  Nor,  I  continued,  can  she  derive  any  pecu- 
liar advantage  from  it;  for,  as  one  of  the  Articles  of  the 
Church  of  England  says,  "  As  the  Church  of  Jerusalem,  Alex- 
andria and  Antioch  have  erred,  so  also  the  Church  of  Rome 
hath  erred,  not  only  in  their  living  and  manner  of  ceremonies, 
but  also  in  matters  of  faith."  Here  are  three  of  the  apostol- 
ical churches  :  that  of  Jerusalem,  founded  by  all  the  apostles, 
is  now  apostate  and  Mohanunedan  ;  that  of  Antioch,  founded 
by  Peter,  is  now  apostate  and  Mohammedan  ;  that  of  Alexan- 
dria, founded  by  Mark,  is  now  apostate  and  Mohammedan. 
All  the  seven  churches  of  Asia,  all  apostolical  as  they  were, 
are  now  separated  as  much  as  ourselves  from  the  Church  of 
Rome,  so  that  I  see  not  what  the  Church  of  Rome  can  gain 
by  calling  herself  apostolical  in  this  sense  of  having  been 
founded  by  an  apostle.  It  has  not  secured  other  apostolical 
churches  from  error  like  that  of  the  Greek  churches ;  or 
from  apostacy,  like  that  of  the  Asiatic  churches.  The  Church 
of  Rome  acknowledges  this  herself.  I  do  not  know,  therefore, 
what  she  gains  by  this  argument. 

He  saw  this  very  clearly,  and  said,  that  he  felt,  and  for  a 
long  time  had  felt,  that  for  a  church  to  be  old  and  apostolical 
was  a  very  good  thing,  but  that  it  was  not  every  thing  ;  and 
that  all  events  it  did  not  keep  her  from  falling.  The  Church 
of  Jerusalem,  where  the  blessed  Saviour  himself  taught  and 
preached,  and  where  St.  Peter  himself  first  preached  on  the 
day  of  Pentecost — was  she  not  the  first  and  oldest  and  most 
apostolical  of  all  churches  ?  And  yet — God's  holy  will  be 
done ! — it  is  now  gone — gone !  He  uttered  this  in  a  very 
impressive  and  solemn  tone,  and  then  added — It  is  plain,  that 
the  oldest  and  most  apostolical  churches  may  fall.    Jerusalem 


132  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

has  fallen,  Rome  may  fall,  and  wliy — he  asked  in  a  thought- 
ful way — Why  is  the  church  called  apostolic  in  the  creed  ? 

I  said,  in  reply  to  this,  that  whatever  was  the  meaning  and 
intention  of  the  epithet,  it  was  evident  it  could  not  mean  or 
intend  merely  that  a  church  was  founded  by  an  apostle,  or  in 
the  apostolic  times ;  because,  if  that  was  the  meaning  and 
intention,  then  there  could  be  no  true  and  apostolical  church, 
but  those  which  were  founded  in  the  very  earliest  ages.  Now 
America  was  unknown — undiscovered  in  the  apostolic  times, 
and  yet  she  has  now  many  millions  of  souls  living  and  dying 
in  the  true  faith  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  she  has  thus  a  true  and 
apostolic  church  within  her  bosom,  although  not  founded  by 
the  apostles,  or  in  the  apostolic  times.  The  words  in  the  creed 
must  mean  something  else. 

He  here  broke  in,  saying,  that  there  could  be  no  doubt  on 
that  point,  for  that  the  Church  of  Ireland  was  not  founded  in 
the  apostles'  times.  It  was  founded,  he  had  read,  by  the 
blessed  St.  Patrick  in  the  fourth  century.  All  the  apostles 
were  dead  and  gone  to  glory,  long  before  that  time ;  and 
therefore  as  you  say  of  the  Church  of  America,  neither  could 
the  Church  of  Ireland  be  apostolical,  if  that  was  the  meaning 
of  the  epithets  in  the  creed. 

It  was  evident  my  old  friend  was  well-pleased  at  his  own 
cleverness,  in  adducing  so  very  apt  and  appropriate  an  illus- 
tration, as  tlie  recent  foundation  of  the  Irish  Church.  And  as 
I  saw  he  fully  understood  my  objection  so  far,  I  proceeded  to 
state  what  seemed  to  me  the  true  purport  of  the  word  in  the 
creed. 

I  reminded  him  that  there  was  another  and  very  different 
meaning  for  the  word — that  to  say  a  church  was  scriptural, 
meant  that  its  doctrines  were  in  agreement  with  the  Scriptures ; 
or  to  say  that  a  church  was  Roman  Catholic  meant  that  its 
doctrines  were  in  accordance  with  the  Roman  Catholic  Church ; 
and  in  precisely  the  same  way,  when  it  is  said  that  the  church 
is  apostolical,  it  is  meant  that  its  doctrines  are  in  agreement 
with  the  doctrines  of  the  apostles. 

He  seemed  fully  to  receive  this,  and  be  satisfied  with  it. 


APOSTOLICITY    OF   THE    CHURCH.  133 

I  continued  to  say  that  we  were  to  inquire — and  it  was  the 
grand  subject  of  euquiry — whether  the  Roman  Churches,  or 
the  Protestant  Churches,  had  most  claim  to  be  called  apos- 
tolical in  this  sense. 

This — in  order  to  a  fair  and  candid  inquiry — requires  us 
first  to  determine  the  way  in  which  such  inquiry  or  examina- 
tion is  to  be  ascertained.  How  are  we  to  ascertain — how 
are  we  best  to  test  the  claims  to  be  in  accordance  with  the 
apostles  ? 

It  is  by  comparing  the  doctrine  and  discipline  of  the 
churches,  whether  Roman  or  Protestant,  with  the  writings  of 
the  apostles.  I  argued  thus  :  If  we  wish  to  ascertain  the  opin- 
ions of  Luther  and  Melancthon  and  Zwinglius  and  Calvin,  and 
the  continental  reformers  of  the  16th  century,  our  most  fair, 
candid  and  reasonable  course  will  be,  to  open  their  writings, 
and  learn  thus  from  themselves  their  own  opinions.  This  is 
infinitely  better  than  to  take  them  at  second-hand.  Again,  if 
we  desire  to  learn  the  judgment  of  Cranmer,  and  Latimer,  and 
Ridley,  and  Hooper,  and  Jewell,  and  the  other  Reformers  of 
England  of  the  16th  century,  is  it  not  the  true  and  only  just 
and  reasonable  course  to  open  their  writings,  and  thus  learn 
from  themselves,  not  from  second-hand  sources,  but  from  them- 
selves, their  own  opinions.  Again,  if  we  want  to  ascertain  the 
mind  of  the  Nonconformists  of  the  iVth  century :  of  Baxter, 
and  Howe,  and  Calamy,  and  Manton ;  there  seems  to  be  no 
course  so  just,  and  fair,  and  right  as  going  direct  to  their 
writino-s  and  so  learning  from  themselves,  and  not  at  second- 
hand, the  opinions  they  entertained.  On  the  very  same  prin- 
ciple, I  argued,  that  if  our  object  be  to  learn  the  mind,  the 
opinion,  the  doctrine  and  discipline  of  the  apostles,  with  the 
view  to  ascertain  whether  or  not  the  doctrines  and  discipline 
of  the  church  be  in  accordance  with  them — if  our  object  be 
to  ascertain  whether  the  Church  of  Rome,  or  the  Church  of 
England — be  apostolical,  in  this  sense  of  the  word,  then  we 
must,  if  we  would  be  fair,  and  just,  and  reasonable,  come  to 
the  writings  of  the  apostles,  and  thus  bring  all  to  the  test  of 
the  New  Testament  Scriptures, 


134  EVENINGS    WITH   THE    ROMANISTS. 

He  remarked  that  that  would  bring  it,  in  the  end,  to  tlie 
Protestant  principle  of  trjiug  every  thing  by  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures ;  and  he  added  thoughtfully,  that  he  was  sure  it  was 
after  all  the  right  way.  He  paused,  and  after  a  few  moments 
said,  that  he  had  read  somewhere  that  the  word  "  apostolical" 
sometimes  meant  the  succession  of  lb  a  clergy  of  the  church 
regularly  and  without  break,  like  the  links  of  a  chain  so  to 
speak,  from  the  apostles  to  the  present  time  ;  that  is,  that 
every  single  clergyman  was  ordained  by  the  laying-on  of  the 
hands  of  those  who  were  previously  ordained  in  the  same 
way,  and  whose  ordainers  were  themselves  previously  ordained 
in  the  same  way  by  the  laying  on  of  hands.  And  that  thus 
they  could  trace  every  one  of  the  clergy  regularly  to  the  times 
of  the  apostles.  He  added,  that  among  the  priests  of  the 
Church  of  Rome,  he  had  often  heard  this  explanation — that 
he  did  not  himself  think  much  of  it — but  wished  to  know 
my  opinion.  His  own  opinion,  he  at  once  avowed,  was,  that 
every  church  should  be  tried  by  the  Word  of  God — by  the 
Holy  Scriptures. 

To  this  I  replied,  that  I  fully  agreed  with  him,  that  after 
all,  the  only  safe  and  certain  test  or  standard  of  truth  was  the 
Holy  Scriptures ;  and  that  the  more  they  were  read  in  faith, 
and  prayer,  and  humility,  the  more  men  would  be  led  to  make 
them  the  only  test  or  standard.  This  was  the  invariable  re- 
sult with  those  who  knew  and  loved  them. 

He  again  asked  me,  what  I  thought  of  the  succession  from 
the  apostles. 

I  answered  this  by  saying  that  every  church  in  Christendom 
had  this  sort  of  succession  from  the  apostles.  In  the  Church 
of  Rome,  in  the  Churches  of  Greece,  in  the  Protestant  Churches, 
they  all  claim  the  same  succession,  that  is,  all  their  clergy  are 
ordained  by  clergy  who  were  themselves  ordained  before  them ; 
and  they  ordained  again  by  others  before  them,  and  so  on  to 
the  times  of  the  apostles. 

He  stated  that  he  had  heard  this  before,  especially  of  the 
Protestant  Churches  of  England  and  Ireland.  At  the  Reform- 
ation,  the  archbishops,   and   bishops,   and    priests,  changed 


APOSTOLICITl    OF   THE    CHURCH.  135 

their  doctrines,  they  were  not  changed  themselves,  that  is, 
they  were  not  turned,  out,  and  unordained  men  put  in  their 
places.  He  had  heard  that  the  mass-book  was  turned  out, 
and  the  common-prayer  book  was  brought  in,  but  that  the 
clergy  were  not  changed.  They  gave  up  Romanism,  and  they 
took  up  Protestantism.  They  changed  their  religion,  but 
were  not  changed  themselves.  They  did  not  resign  their 
parishes. 

I  stated,  that  such  was  the  true  view  of  the  facts,  for  that 
Cranmer,  and  Latimer,  and  Ridley,  and  Hooper,  and  the  rest 
of  them,  were  all  archbishops,  and  bishops,  and  priests,  be- 
longed to  the  Church  of  Rome,  that  is,  held  communion  with 
her.  And  if  they  had  the  succession  of  orders  from  the  apos- 
tles, before  their  conversion,  they  must  have  had  it  after  their 
conversion. 

He  then  asked,  whether  the  same  was  true  of  the  Presby- 
terian ministers  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  and  of  the  Dis- 
senters of  England  and  Ireland.     Had  they  this  succession  ? 

Most  certainly,  was  my  reply.  In  the  former  country — 
Scotland — the  Romish  priests  became  Protestant  ministers; 
so  that  these  Protestant  ministers  had  this  apostolic  succes- 
sion as  much  after  conversion  as  before  ;  and  to  this  day  they 
never  recognize  any  man  as  an  ordained  minister,  unless  he 
has  been  ordained  by  others  who  were  themselves  ordained 
ministers  before  them.  And  so  too  with  the  Dissenters  or 
Nonconformists.  Whenever  any  one  of  them  is  to  be  or- 
dained, there  is  a  meeting  of  the  congregation,  and  some  older 
ministers  attend ;  and  with  prayer,  those  senior  ministers,  who 
were  themselves  so  ordained  before,  lay  hands,  after  the 
apostles'  example,  upon  the  young  candidate,  and  thus  set 
him  apart  for  the  sacred  office  of  the  ministry.  They  thus 
receive  the  outward  ordination  to  the  ministry  from  those  who 
were  ministers  before  them,  and  so  on  in  successive  genera- 
tions to  the  time  of  the  Reformation,  and  so  on  to  the  age  of 
the  apostles.  And  thus  this  apostolical  succession,  of  which 
the  Church  of  Rome  boasts  so  much,  belongs  to  all  the  other 
churches  Ukewise — is  as  much  the  privilege  of  all  our  Episco- 


136  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

palian  and  Presbyterian — of  all  our  conforming  and  noncon- 
forming churches,  as  of  the  Church  of  Rome. 

He  seemed  very  much  struck  with  this  view  of  the  subject. 
It  was  new  to  him  ;  and  he  said,  that  after  all  that  men 
might  say  on  the  subject,  it  seemed  to  him  that  they  must  in 
the  end  come  to  the  Holy  Scriptures.  He  said  that  this  kind 
of  apostolicity  could  not  serve  the  Church  of  Rome.  If  she  did 
not  give  it  up,  he  could  not  help  it,  for  he  felt  he  must  give  it 
up  forever. 

I  then  took  occasion  to  tell  him,  that  the  advocates  of  the 
Church  of  Rome  were  perfectly  well  aware  of  all  this ;  and 
that  all  the  Protestant  churches  possessed  this  kind  of  apos- 
tolical succession  as  well  as  herself.  And  therefore,  she  has 
invented  another  kind  of  succession  :  she  says  that  apostolical 
succession  does  not  mean  the  regular  succession  of  clergy  in 
general,  but  only  the  regular  succession  of  bishops. 

And  what  arguments,  he  asked  warmly,  have  they  for  that? 
At  all  events,  you  have  bishops  and  a  succession  of  bishops  in 
the  Church  of  England,  but  what  proof  have  they  for  saying  it 
is  only  a  succession  of  bishops  ?  It  is  not  with  the  bishops 
that  we,  the  people,  have  to  do  ;  it  is  with  the  priests  that  we 
are  concerned.  Have  they  any  thing  in  the  Holy  ScrijDtures 
about  succession  of  bishops  any  more  than  about  succession 
of  priests  ?     There  was  a  dash  of  indignant  feeling  in  his  tone. 

I  said  that  I  never  knew  or  heard  any  reason  for  this  dis- 
tinction. St.  Paul  speaks  of  Timotliy  as  having  been  ordained 
"  by  the  laying  on  of  hands  of  the  Presbytery,"  as  well  as  his 
own.  And  that  I  believed  that  the  true  succession  is  in  the 
Presbytery  at  large,  and  not  in  the  Episcopacy  alone.  I  then 
told  him,  that  in  the  Church  of  England  the  ordination  is  con- 
ferred not  by  the  bishop  alone,  but  by  him  and  by  the  Pres- 
bytery, that  is,  by  the  clergy  present,  who  all,  along  with  the 
bishop,  lay  their  hands  alike  on  the  head  of  the  candidate. 
The  Church  of  Enc'land  does  not  acknowledo-e  the  distinction, 
and  she  thus  shows  that  she  holds  that  the  true  apostolical 
succession  is  not  in  the  bishops  alone,  but  in  the  bishops  and 
presbyters  together. 


,  APOSTOLICITY    OF   THE    CHURCH.  137 

He  thanked  me  warmly  for  this,  and  showed  that  some 
little  difficulties  had  been  removed  from  his  mind.  He  seemed 
more  at  his  ease,  as  if  he  breathed  more  freely.  He  said  that 
every  thing  went  to  show  there  was  no  sure  or  certain  way  of 
proving  the  true  church  but  by  the  Holy  Scriptures.  That 
was  the  only  true  apostolicity. 

I  took  the  0232>ortunity  of  pressing  this  upon  him.  I  also 
took  a  short  review  of  our  argument,  reminding  him  it  arose 
on  the  meaning  of  the  words  "ApostoHcal  Church"  in  the 
creed ; — that  it  could  not  mean  a  church  founded  by  apostles 
or  in  apostolic  times,  for  that  many  other  churches,  as  that  of 
Jerusalem,  founded  by  our  Lord  himself,  and  blessed  with  the 
presence,  the  miracles,  the  teaching,  of  St.  Peter,  and  all  the 
apostles,  had  fallen  into  apostasy  and  Mohammedanism ; — that 
it  could  not  mean  a  succession  in  the  ministry  from  apostolic 
days,  for  that  belonged  to  every  church,  and  was  therefore  not 
an  exclusive  mark  of  any — and  that  finally,  it  could  onl}'- 
mean  a  church  which  held,  believed,  and  loved,  and  practiced 
the  doctrines  and  discij^line  of  the  apostles,  as  set  forth  in  their 
own  writings  and  sermons  in  the  Holy  Scriptures. 

We  soon  parted.  I  felt  thankful  that  his  manner  showed  a 
greater  approximation  to  my  opinions  than  on  any  former 
conversation. 


CONFESSION  AND  ABSOLUTION. 

Confession  of  Sin  to  God— The  Eomlsh  Form  of  Confession — Scripture  Texts  on 
Confession — Tlie  Difference  between  the  two  Churches — Confession  only  com- 
manded to  God — Mutual  Confession — Priestly  Absolution  proved  Useless  by  a 
Dilemma — The  Absolving  and  Forgiving  Power  involved  in  the  Words  of  our 
Lord — Matt,  xviii.  IS  ;  John  xx.  23 — This  Power  belongs  to  all  Believers  alike — 
The  Power  of  Forgiveness  defined — Explanation  of  the  Allusion  to  the  Levitical 
Law  in  the  Words  of  our  Lord — Objection  to  the  Eomish  Doctrine  as  Inconsist- 
ent with  Divine  Justice — With  Social  Morality — Note,  on  the  Form  of  Absolu- 
tion in  the  Church  of  England. 

I  WAS  speaking  one  day,  in  the  cottage  of  one  of  my  peo- 
ple, on  the  duty  of  confessing  our  sins  to  God.  There  were 
several  present,  and  among  them  three  or  four  members  of 
the  Church  of  Rome.  I  had  no  thought  of  them  particularly 
while  speaking  on  the  subject,  my  object  was  to  show  that  if 
we  are  deeply  impressed  with  a  sense  of  our  sinfulness,  we 
shall  be  very  lowly  and  humble,  and  shall  think  very  lowly 
and  humbly  of  ourselves  ;  and  at  times  hate  and  loathe  our- 
selves, at  the  memory  of  our  sins ; — that  then  the  Christian 
will  go  before  his  God  and  Sa\'iour,  and  confess  his  sinfulness 
and  ask  for  pardon  from  him  against  whom  he  has  sinned, 
and  who  alone  can  forgive.  While  enlarging  on  this,  I  press- 
ed on  my  hearers  that  humiliation  and  repentance  were  in- 
separable from  a  real  Christianity  ;  and  that  a  confession  of 
sin  to  God  was  inseparable  from  these.  I  referred  to  the 
beautiful  and  touching  confession  in  the  Prophet  Daniel,  ix. 
3-19,  as  an  illustration  of  what  such  a  humiliation  and  con- 
fession ought  to  be.  And  I  pressed  also  on  them,  that  there 
was  a  comfort  and  a  blessedness,  and  a  sweet  peace  for  the  heart, 
when  the  man  thus  pours  out  his  whole  soul  unreservedly  before 
his  God,  unburdening  and  unbosoming  himself  to  Him  "  whose 


CONFESSION    AND    ABSOLUTION.  139 

eyes  are  over  the  righteous,  and  whose  ears  a«-e  open  to  their 
prayers  ;"  thus  seeking  the  sympathy  and  looking  for  the  for- 
giveness of  his  God.  There  is  an  inexpressible  happiness  in 
thus  pouring  out  one's  soul  before  Him,  in  the  confession  of 
sin,  and  in  the  prayer  for  forgiveness,  and  then  experiencing 
the  peace  and  joy  that,  in  answer  to  prayer,  is  breathed  into 
the  soul  of  the  believer ;  it  steals  into  the  heart  hke  dew  upon 
the  tender  grass,  and  there  is  peace  and  happiness  more  beau- 
tiful in  the  spiritual  eye  than  even  the  sparkling  and  brilliancy 
of  the  dew  upon  the  herb.  The  heart  rejoices,  and  sees  beau- 
ty, and  love,  and  happiness  in  every  thing. 

After  I  had  thus  expressed  myself,  without  any  allusion  to 
any  particular  church,  one  of  the  Roman  Catholics  present 
said,  that  they  were  in  the  habit  of  making  this  confession  to 
the  priest  and  receiving  his  absolution.  And  that  they  ex- 
perienced thus  the  peace  and  happiness  of  having  their  sins 
foro-iven. 

This  led  to  a  short  conversation  on  the  form  called  "  The 
Confiteor,"  which  he  repeated,  as  usually  said  at  the  confes- 
sional. It  runs  thus :  "  I  confess  to  Almighty  God,  to  the 
blessed  Mary,  ever  Virgin,  to  blessed  Michael  the  Archangel, 
to  blessed  John  Baptist,  to  the  holy  Apostles  Peter  and  Paul, 
to  all  the  saints,  and  to  you,  father,  that  I  have  sinned  exceed- 
ingly, in  thought,  word,  and  deed,  through  my  fault,  through 
my  fault,  through  my  most  grievous  fault.  [The  person  then 
specifies  his  several  sins  in  their  details,  and  concludes] — there- 
fore, I  beseech  the  blessed  Mary  ever  Virgin,  the  blessed 
Michael  the  Archangel,  blessed  John  Baptist,  the  holy  Apos- 
tles Peter  and  Paul,  and  all  the  saints,  and  you,  father,  to  pray 
to  our  Lord  God  for  me."  He  added,  that  when  the  confes- 
sion was  made  in  this  form,  it  was  said  to  be  under  the  seal  of 
confession,  and  must  not  he  disclosed  by  the  priest ;  but  that 
if  made  without  this  form,  the  priest  was  not  bound  to  keep  it 
secret ;  and  therefore  every  one  learned  this  form  so  as  to  se- 
cure the  secrecy  of  his  confession  ;  so  that  a  Roman  Catholic 
had  not  only  the  advantage  of  having  his  sins  forgiven,  but 
also  of  having  them  kept  secret  forever. 


140  EVENINGS   WITH    THE   ROMANISTS. 

I  said,  that  there  was  something  else  in  that  form  of  still 
more  importance.  It  contained  a  confession  of  sin  to  God  and 
to  the  saints  alike,  as  if  there  was  no  difference  between  them, 
and  as  if  the  sin  was  as  much  against  one  as  the  other  !  And 
then  there  is  a  prayer  to  the  saints — not  to  God,  but  only  to 
the  saints,  to  pray  to  God  for  the  penitent !  But  still  more 
than  all,  I  added,  there  is  no  prayer  to  God,  neither  to  the 
Father,  the  Son,  or  the  Holy  Spirit — there  is  no  mention  of 
the  blessed  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  through  whom  alone  we  can 
have  forgiveness  ;  and  there  is  no  allusion  to  the  Holy  Spirit, 
through  whom  alone  we  can  be  made  holy ;  and  no  cry  to 
him  for  repentance,  no  prayer  for  forgiveness,  no  desire  for 
sanctification  !  There  is  the  absence  of  all  that  is  distinctive 
of  true  Christianity.  I  added,  that  all  this  omission  seems 
designed  to  draw  away  the  minds  of  the  people  from  Jesus 
Christ  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  order  to  lead  them  to  think  only 
of  the  priest,  and  to  confess  only  to  him,  and  to  look  only  to 
him  for  forgiveness.  It  seemed  to  do  this  eflfectually ;  but 
alas,  it  leads  them  to  forget  Christ. 

This  remark  was  felt — deeply  felt  by  some  present ;  and  it 
led  to  some  very  sferious  conversation.  But  we  soon  separated, 
not  however,  till  it  was  arranged  that  on  an  appointed  even- 
ing they  should  come  again  with  some  other  of  their  friends 
to  speak  more  fully  on  the  subject. 

In  the  course  of  some  few  days  we  met  again ;  our  party 
might  now  consist  of  some  sixteen  or  eighteen  persons, 
of  whom  the  larger  portion  were  members  of  the  Church  of 
Eome. 

The  conversation  commenced,  by  one  of  them  asking  me, 
why  the  Protestants  did  not  practice  confession.  He  saicl  that 
every  man  was  a  sinner,  and  therefore  had  sins  to  confess — 
that  he  thereby  received  forgiveness  and  consolation — that  the 
Church  of  Rome  had  therefore  ordained  that  every  one  should 
confess  his  sins,  at  least  once  a  year  ;  that  she  did  this  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  Holy  Scriptures,  which  expressly  command- 
ed the  practice  of  confession,  as  where  it  is  said,  "  Confess  your 
sins  one  to  another" — James  v.  16.     And  as  was  practiced  in 


CONFESSION    AND    ABSOLUTION.  -       141 

the  presence  of  John  llie  Baptist,  as  we  read,  "  They  were 
baptized  of  him  in  Jordan,  confessing  their  sins," — Matt.  iii.  C. 
And  again,  before  St.  Paul,  as  we  read,  "  Many  that  believed, 
came,  and  confessed,  and  showed  their  deeds." — Acts  xix.  1 8. 
There  was  confession  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  yet  Protes- 
tants never  practice  it. 

I  stated  that  he  was  altogether  under  a  mistake  in  suppos- 
ing that  Protestants  do  not  confess ;  for  myself  I  said,  that  I 
would  not  for  all  this  world  could  give,  forego  the  privilege 
of  confessing  my  sins — that  day  by  day,  and  night  by  night, 
publicly  and  privately  it  was  my  practice — that  I  believed  and 
knew  it  was  the  practice  of  every  religious  Protestant ;  and 
that  no  truly  pious  person  would  omit  it.  But — for  I  saw  the 
surprise  experienced  by  many  at  the  statement — I  added,  there 
was  no  difference  whatever,  between  the  two  churches,  as  to 
the  duty  of  confession,  the  difference  was  as  to  the  person  to 
whom  the  confession  was  to  be  made ;  Romanists  confessing 
to  THE  PRIEST  while  Protestants  confess  to  God.  There  is  the 
true  difference  between  us. 

I  perceived  that  this  was  fully  recognized,  and  being  un- 
willing that  our  conversation  should  be, merely  controversial, 
I  went  on  to  say,  that  the  Christian  ever  found  a  comfort,  and 
a  blessedness,  and  a  peace  in  coming  to  his  God,  and  in  deep 
humiliation  and  sincere  penitence,  confessing  his  sins,  and 
praying  for  mercy,  pardon  and  grace.  It  was  only  the  man 
who  had  tried  and  experienced  it,  could  believe  the  blessed 
comfort,  and  the  inward  peace  that  he  enjoyed,  who  could  re- 
tire to  his  inmost  chamber,  and  there,  where  there  was  no  eye 
to  see  his  tears,  but  His  who  seeth  in  secret,  and  no  ear  to 
hear  his  words,  but  His  whose  ears  are  open  to  the  prayers 
of  his  people — there  unbosoming  himself,  unburdening  his 
aching,  bursting  heart,  pouring  out  as  it  were,  his  whole  soul, 
with  all  its  sin,  and  sorrow,  and  shame,  and  there  watching 
and  waiting  till,  so  to  speak,  he  feels  the  blood-drops  of  the 
crucified  Saviour  fall  upon  the  prostrate  penitent,  and  touch  his 
soul.  It  seems  to  come  soft  as  the  dew  of  heaven,  to  soothe  and 
refresh  his  crushed  and  bruised  spirits.     It  is  only  such  a  mnn 


142  EVENINGS    WITH   THE    ROMANISTS. 

that  really  knows  the  comfort  and  blessedness  of  confession  to 
Lis  God,  and  he  who  does  know  it,  will  never  forego  such  a 
well-spring  and  fountain  of  peace,  for  all  the  happiness  the 
world  can  give. 

All  this  was  fully  assented  to,  and  there  were  some  who 
seemed  to  feel  as  if  it  was  true ;  but  it  was  remarked  that 
while  a  man  ought  to  confess  his  sins  to  his  God,  he  ought 
also  to  confess  them  to  his  priest,  who  was  authorized  by  the 
Almighty  to  hear  the  confession  and  to  give  the  absolution,  sc 
that  the  (j[uestion  was  again  asked — why  the  Protestants  did 
not  practice  confession  to  the  priest  ? 

I  answered  this  inquiry  by  saying  as  before,  that  the  precise 
difference  between  the  churches,  was,  that  one  made  confession 
to  God,  and  the  other  to  the  priest — that  the  clear  and  ex- 
press language  of  the  Holy  Scripture  always  enjoined  the 
former,  and  supplied  no  instance  of  the  latter.  To  substantiate 
this  statement,  I  referred  to  the  following  texts  : 

"  And  Joshua  said  unto  Achan,  My  son,  give,  I  pray  thee, 
glory  to  the  Lord  God  of  Israel,  and  make  confession  unto 
him ;  and  tell  me  now  what  thou  hast  done  ;  hide  it  not  from 
me." — Joshua  vii.  19. 

"  And  Hezckiah  spake  comfortably  unto  all  the  Levites  that 
taught  the  good  knowledge  of  the  Lord  :  and  they  did  eat 
throughout  the  feast  seven  days,  offering  peace-offerings,  and 
making  confessions  to  the  Lord  God  of  their  fathers." — 2 
Chron.  xxx.  22. 

"  And  Ezra  the  priest  stood  up,  and  said  unto  them.  Ye 
have  transgressed,  and  have  taken  strange  wives,  to  increase 
the  trespass  of  Israel.  Now  therefore  make  confession  unto 
the  Lord  God  of  your  fathers,  and  do  his  pleasure." — Ezra  x. 
10,11. 

"  I  acknowledged  my  sin  unto  thee,  and  mine  iniquity  have 
I  not  hid.  I  said,  I  will  confess  my  transgressions  unto  the 
Lord ;  and  thou  forgavest  the  iniquity  of  my  sin." — Psalm 
xxxii.  5. 

"  And  I  prayed  unto  the  Lord  my  God,  and  made  my  con- 
fession, and  said,  0  Lord,  the  great  and  dreadful  God,  keeping 


CONFESSION    AND    ABSOLUTION.  143 

the  covenant  and  mercy  to  them  that  love  him,  and  to  them 
tha-t  keep  his  commandments." — Dan.  ix.  4. 

"  K  we  say  that  we  have  no  sin,  we  deceive  ourselves,  and 
the  truth  is  not  in  us.  If  we  confess  our  sins,  he  is  faithful 
and  just  to  forgive  us  our  sins,  and  to  cleanse  us  from  all  un- 
righteousness."— 1  John  i.  8,  9. 

In  each  of  these  places,  we  have  either  a  command  to  make 
our  confession  to  God,  or  an  encouragement  to  do  so,  or  an 
example  of  it.  They  are  plain  and  clear  texts,  which  every 
one  can  understand.  And  they  are  thus  an  illustration  of  the 
Protestant  practice,  of  confessing  only  to  God.  They  are  also 
a  justification  of  our  practice,  while  at  the  same  time,  there  is 
not  a  single  command  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  to  justify  con- 
fession to  a  PRIEST,  nor  a  single  example  to  illustrate  it. 
Auricular  Confession,  that  is,  a  private  and  secret  confession 
to  the  alone  ear  of  a  priest,  is  a  thing  unknown  in  the  Holy 
Scriptures. 

Many  eyes  were  now  directed  to  our  friend,  who  had  asked 
the  question,  and  they  seemed  to  feel  that  my  arguments  re- 
quired an  answer.  There  was  a  pause  of  some  moments,  and 
it  would  have  continued,  if  it  had  not  been  broken  by  one  of 
those  whose  love  of  the  ludicrous,  so  common,  and  indeed 
national,  could  not  restrain  itself.  With  an  arch  eye,  and  a 
look  intensely  droll,  he  suggested  to  hun  in  half  a  whisper,  the 
example  of  Judas,  who,  having  betrayed  his  Saviour,  returned 
to  the  priests,  and  confessed  it !  The  drollery  of  making 
Judas  the  example  to  be  followed,  acted  like  magic  on  a  second 
of  the  party  present,  who  suggested  in  the  same  undertone, 
that  Judas  knew  his  duty  well,  for  he  brought  the  money  to 
the  priest,  when  he  made  his  confession  ! 

These  sallies,  however  unfitting  the  subject,  are  irrepressible 
among  the  Irish,  even  upon  the  most  solemn  subject.  So  ap- 
pearing not  to  hear  what  had  passed,  I  remarked  that  the  places 
usually  cited  by  Roman  Catholics  in  favor  of  confession  to  the 
priest,  had  no  reference  whatever  to  it.  The  text,  "  Confess 
your  faults  one  to  another,  and  pray  one  for  another,"  only 
taught  a  mutual   confession ; — that  where  we  have  sinned 


144  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

against  God  or  against  our  fellows,  we  should  not  secretly  or 
proudly  conceal  it,  or  deny  it,  but  mutually  confess  it ; — we 
should  frankly  and  openly  as  Christian  brethren,  confess  it  one 
to  another.  It  is  not  that  we  are  to  confess  our  faults  to  the 
priest  alone^  but  "  one  to  another  ;"  so  that  if  we  confess  to  the 
priests,  they  should  confess  to  us  in  return.  The  simple  words 
of  the  text,  show  that  it  is  a  mutual  confession,  and  not  a  con- 
fession to  the  priest  alone.  It  is  a  brotherly  confession,  and 
has  nothing  sacerdotal  in  it.  If,  I  added,  these  words  prove 
that  any  among  you  should  confess  to  the  priest,  they  also 
prove  that  the  priest  should  confess  to  you  in  return.  The 
words  are,  "  Confess  your  faults  one  to  another."  They  com- 
mand two  things — confession  and  prayer,  and  both  are  desired 
to  be  mutual.  It  is  neither  prayer  for  the  priest  alone,  nor 
confession  to  the  priest  alone.  It  is  mutual  prayer  and  mutual 
confession. 

This  ans-\ver  was  sufficient,  and  the  general  feeling  exhibited 
among  all  present,  was  that  of  satisfaction  at  the  answer,  so  far 
as  this  particular  text  is  concerned.  Instead  of  cavihng  or 
questioning,  they  acknowledged  that  I  had  given  the  fair 
meaning  of  the  words.  And  one  remarked  with  the  general 
approval,  or  at  least  assent  of  the  others,  that  the  words  "  pray 
one  for  another,"  did  not  mean  "  pray  for  the  priest  alone  ;" 
but  that  we  were  to  pray  for  the  priest,  and  the  priest  was  to 
pray  for  us.  It  was  mutual  i^rayer — prayer  for  one  another. 
And  in  the  same  way,  he  added,  "  Confess  your  sins  one  to 
another,"  must  mean  that  both  priest  and  layman  are  to  con- 
fess or  acknowledge  one  to  another  their  many  sins.* 

*  The  other  two  texts  are  seldom  much  dwelt  on,  by  candid  Ro- 
man Catholics ;  indeed  vhey  present  no  real  difficulty.  The  place  in 
Matt.  iii.  6,  sirai)ly  states  that  tlie  parties  came  openly  and  publicly 
to  John  the  Baptist,  and  that  he  baptized  them  openly  and  pubhcly ; 
and  when  they  are  said  to  confess  their  sins,  it  was  evidently  as  openly 
and  publicly  as  their  coming  to  him  and  being  baptized  by  him.  It 
could  not,  at  least,  be  a  sacerdotal  confession,  inasmuch  as  the  Baptist 
was  neither  a  Jewish  Priest  nor  a  Christian  Priest.  And  the  same  re- 
mark explains  the  place  in  Acts  xix.  18.     It  was  the  open  and  public 


CONFESSION    AND    ABSOLUTION.  145 

But  wliile  the  question  tlius  far  seemed  inclining  in  my 
favor,  I  felt  that  the  great  struggle  upon  which  my  opponents 
relied,  was  still  in  reserve — that  we  had  been  thus  far  only 
skirmishing  as  with  small  arms,  while  the  heavy  artillery  on 
which  they  most  depended  was  still  to  come  into  action.  And 
I  therefore  prepared  myself  for  what  was  at  hand — namely, 
the  argument  for  auricular  confession  derived  from  the  power 
of  absolution.  My  expectation  was  deferred  for  a  few  moments, 
as  one  of  the  party  urged  the  follow^ing  argument : 

It  is  found  by  experience,  he  said,  that  the  practice  of  con- 
fessing to  a  priest  is  good,  and  although  it  certainly  can  not 
be  well  proved  from  Holy  Scripture,  certainly  not  from  the 
words  in  St.  James,  yet  the  practice  is  very  good  in  itself,  and 
prevents  many  a  man  from  fiilling  into  sin.  When  a  man — 
or  woman  either — knows  he  must  go  to  confession — that 
sooner  or  later  he  must  tell  his  sin  to  his  clergy — that  though 
he,  perhaps,  may  be  able  to  hide  it  from  every  one  else,  yet 
he  can  not  keep  it  a  secret  from  his  priest,  he  must  tell  him  all 
shame — wlien  a  man  knows  this,  it  many  times  frightens  him 
beforehand,  and  prevents  his  committing  the  sin.  The  fear 
of  the  priest  prevents  him.  Now,  he  added,  that  is  the  way 
with  Roman  Catholics :  but  the  Protestants  have  no  such  fear 
of  the  clergy,  because  they  have  no  confession. 

This  objection  had  often  before  been  pressed  upon  me,  and 
therefore  I  was  the  more  prepared  with  my  answer.  I  stated 
that  the  argument  was  very  characteristic  of  the  difference 
between  the  two  churches.  It  spoke  of  the  fear  of  a  priest — 
of  the  fear  of  man — of  the  fear  of  a  fellow-mortal  and  fellow- 
sinner.  It  spoke  of  men  and  women  being  deterred  from  sin 
by  this  fear.  But  it  said  nothing  of  the  fear  of  God,  and  our 
Lord  has  said,  "  Fear  not  him  that  can  kill  the  body — but  fear 

acknowledgment  of  their  former  evil  lives  and  sinful  deeds.  It  was 
the  act  of  men  who  were  convinced  of  their  sins,  and  openly  and 
publicly  confessed  it ;  and  showed  the  sincerity  of  their  conversion,  by 
openly  and  publicly  surrendering  theit  bad  books,  and  burning  them 
before  all.  There  is  nothing  of  Auricular  Confession — nothing  of  Sac- 
erdotal Confession  in  it. 

1 


146  EVENINGS    WITH   THE    ROMANISTS. 

Him  that  can  cast  both  body  and  soul  into  hell,  yea,  I  say  unto 
you,  fear  Him."  Now  while  this  abstaining  from  sin  merely 
through  fear  of  man  is  very  characteristic  of  the  Church  of 
Rome,  it  is  far  otherwise  with  Protestants.  We  feel  that 
however  secret  our  sin — however  unknown  to  the  world — 
however  done  in  our  secret  chamber — however  buried  in  our 
own  bosom,  yet  is  it  known  to  an  all-seeing  God,  and  will  yet 
be  made  known  by  Him  before  an  assembled  universe.  We 
may  do  it  "  in  the  secret  chamber,"  but  He  will  proclaim  it 
"  on  the  housetop."  The  mere  fear  of  man  is  nothing  with  us, 
in  comparison  with  this.  Tlie  diflerence  between  us,  is,  that 
Romanists  abstain  from  sin  through  fear  of  the  priest,  while 
the  Protestant  forbears  through  fear  of  God.  The  difference 
is  a  very  wide  one,  and  however  painful  to  contemplate — and 
however  unwilling  I  might  be  to  express  it — yet  it  has  been 
necessitated  by  its  being  made  an  argument  in  favor  of  con- 
fession to  a  priest.  Confession  to  a  priest  leads  to  a  fear  of 
the  priests — confession  to  Ood  leads  to  the  fear  and  the  love 
of  God. 

I  do  not  know  what  effect  this  might  have  had  on  my 
hearers,  but  I  had  often  before  observed  that  the  contrast  acted 
favorably  for  our  Protestantism  upon  minds  religiously  dis- 
posed among  the  Roman  Catholics.  And  as  there  was  a 
pause — a  momentary  silence,  I  added,  that  if  the  argument  in 
favor  of  confession  to  a  priest,  was  that  the  fear  of  being 
obliged  to  reveal  all  to  him,  actually  deterred  from  the  com- 
mission of  the  sin,  then  confession  to  a  sheriff  or  to  a  magis- 
trate, or  to  a  hangman,  if  commanded  and  enforced  in  the 
same  way,  would  serve  the  purpose  of  frightening  from  sin,  as 
well  as  confession  to  a  priest.  This  I  felt  was  but  a  poor  and 
miserable  motive  against  sin,  it  was  but  a  ghastly  specter — a 
superstition  to  frighten  children,  or  grown  persons  as  weak 
and  mindless  as  children.  There  is  no  restraint  upon  sin 
worth  the  name,  except  the  love  of  God,  impelling  us  to  do  all 
things  to  please  Him ;  and  a  I'everence  of  God,  that  leads  us 
to  avoid  all  that  is  displeasing  in  His  sight.  These  are  the 
motives  that  God  himself  presents  to  his  intelligent  creatures, 


CONFESSION    AND    ABSOLUTION.  147 

and  a  mere  fear  of  man  is  unworthy  of  us,  either  as  men  or  as 
Christians. 

It  was  immediately  stated  that  besides  the  fear  of  being 
obliged  to  reveal  all  the  sin  with  its  shame,  and  its  aggrava- 
tions, there  was  another  feeling.  It  was  the  wish  for  forgive- 
ness, that  more  than  every  thing  else  led  to  confession.  The 
priest  had  authority  from  the  Great  God  to  give  absolution  of 
sin,  and  so  long  as  he  had  that  power  the  poor  sinner  would 
come  to  him  and  seek  absolution.  And  this,  of  course  he  can 
not  have,  unless  he  has  first  made  a  full  confession  of  all  his 
sins.  He  must  confess  his  sins.  He  must  repent  of  them. 
And  then  the  priest  can  forgive  him. 

I  took  up  his  words  "  he  must  repent  of  them,"  and  repeated 
them  slowly,  so  as  to  fix  the  attention  of  all,  and  then  asked, 
whether  this  repentance  was  necessary  in  order  to  absolution 
— whether  this  repentance  was  necessary  in  order  that  the 
absolution  of  the  priest  might  be  effectual. 

It  was  of  course  necessary,  was  the  reply,  for  there  can  be 
no  forgiveness  without  repentance. 

Is  then,  I  asked,  this  repentance  so  necessary  that  the 
absolution  is  null  and  void  without  it  ? 

Assuredly  so,  it  was  answered  :  If  the  man  does  not  repent, 
the  priest  can  not  forgive,  his  absolution  is  worthless. 

Then,  I  answered,  the  uselessness  of  the  system  of  the 
Church  of  Rome  is  sufficiently  evident,  for  you  acknowledge 
that  if  the  man,  who  confesses  to  the  j^riest,  has  not  repented 
of  his  sins,  he  is  not  forgiven,  and  can  not  be  forgiven 
by  the  priest,  no  matter  whether  the  priest  pronounces  the 
-  absolution  or  not.  If  the  man  has  not  repented,  the  priest ' 
has  no  power  or  authority  to  forgive.  His  absolution  is  null 
and  void  !  Now,  I  added,  there  is  another  case  to  consider — 
if  the  man  has  repented  of  his  sins,  he  does  not  want  the  for- 
giveness of  the  priest,  because  he  has  already  received  the  for- 
giveness of  Jesus  Christ/  I  then  laid  down  broadly  what  I 
knew  would  be  fully  and  freely  admitted,  that  the  promise  of 
forgiveness  of  sins  was  made  by  Jesus  Christ  to  all  who 
repented — that  the  Apostle  Peter  said,  "Repent  and  be  con- 


148  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

verted,  that  your  sins  may  be  blotted  out." — Acts,  iii.  19. 
"When  a  man  has  repented  of  his  sins,  he  forthwith  has  the 
forgiveness  of  Jesus  Christ :  and  having  this,  he  has  no  need 
of  the  forgiveness  of  the  priest. 

There  could  be  no  doubt  or  mistake  as  to  the  effect  which 
this  mode  of  treating  the  question,  had  upon  the  minds  of 
those  present.  It  was  unmistakable  :  indeed  I  have  never 
known  the  argument  pressed  on  the  minds  of  the  Roman 
Catholics,  without  considerable  efiect  following.  They  invari- 
ably feel  it,  and  although,  unhappily,  they  sometimes  regard 
it  as  a  mere  perplexing  difBculty,  which  they  can  not  answer 
or  overcome,  yet  they  always  feel  its  power,  and  not  unfre- 
quently  it  has  detached  them  altogether  from  the  notion  of  a 
sacerdotal  forgiveness  of  sins.  On  the  present  occasion,  my 
object  was  to  force  it  on  their  consideration,  and  I  asked  : — 

Is  it  not  true — is  it  not  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Rome 
herself,  that  if  the  man  has  not  repented,  the  priest  can  not 
forgive  him,  and  his  absolution  is  consequently  useless  ? 

It  is  certainly  true,  was  the  reply  frankly  given. 

Is  it  not  also  true,  I  continued — is  it  not  also  the  doctrine 
of  the  Church  of  Rome,  that  if  the  man  has  repented  of  his 
sins,  Jesus  Christ  has  forgiven  them  ? — so  that  he  has  thus 
the  forgiveness  of  Jesus  Christ  already,  and  does  not  want  the 
forgiveness  of  the  priest.     It  is  useless. 

To  this  there  was  no  reply,  so  that  I  asked — whether  I  was 
clearly  understood. 

The  answer  given  was  clear  and  decisive;  It  was  to  the 
effect  that  my  argument  was  that  the  absolution  of  the  priest 
was  useless — that  if  the  man  repented  not,  the  pardon  of  the 
priest  was  useless,  as  it  could  do  nothing;  and  that  if  the 
man  had  indeed  repented,  the  pardon  of  the  priest  was  also 
useless,  because  the  man  had  already  the  pardon  of  Jesus 
Christ; — that  in  either  case  the  pardon  of  the  clergy  was 
useless. 

I  said  quietly  that  my  argument  was  rightly  understood, 
and  I  asked  for  an  answer.  It  was  frankly  said  in  return,  that 
they  could  not  answer  it. 


CONFESSION    AND    ABSOLUTION.  149 

For  some  moments  more  the  conversation  continued  on 
this  point,  and  then  turned  to  another  subject  altogether.  It 
was  the  most  dilBcult  and  important  of  all. 

It  was  this — that  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  gave  to  His  aj)0stle3 
the  power  of  forgiving  or  retaining  sins — that  these  apostles 
were  succeeded  in  this  power  by  the  bishops,  as  their  success- 
ors in  the  Church — that  these  bishops  impart  or  delegate 
this  power  to  the  priests  of  the  Churcli — that  as  the  priests 
receive  thus  the  power  to  forgive  or  retain  sins,  it  is  necessary 
that  all  persons  should  confess  such  sins  to  the  priests  before 
they  can  impart  the  forgiveness,  as  they  can  not  forgive  the 
sins  till  they  know  them.  And  all  this  was  founded  on — 
"  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  Whatsoever  ye  bind  on  earth  shall 
be  bound  in  heaven ;  and  whatsoever  ye  shall  loose  on  earth 
shall  be  loosed  in  heaven." — Matt,  xviii.  18.  And — "Whose- 
soever sins  ye  remit,  they  are  remitted  unto  them  ;  and  whose- 
soever sins  ye  retain,  they  are  retained." — John,  xx.  23. 

My  answer  to  this  was  at  some  length.  I  can  not  undertake 
to  give  more  than  an  abstract  of  it.  It  may  startle  many. 
It  may  be  new  to  more.  But  believing  most  sacredly  that  it 
is  the  true  solution  of  this  difficult '  question,  I  may  feel  fear 
and  trembling  as  to  my  power  of  developing  my  views,  but 
I  have  the  most  unbounded  confidence  in  their  truth. 

The  first  question — and  a  most  natural  one  it  is — is  as  to 
the  persons  to  whom  these  words  were  spoken. 

Were  they  addressed  to  the  apostles  alone,  either  as  Christians, 
specially  favored  ;  orj  as  men  representing  their  successors  in 
the  episcopacy  or  in  the  priesthood  or  in  the  ministry  of  the 
Church  ? 

Or — Were  they  addressed  to  the  apostles  and  others — not 
to  the  apostles  alon,e  but  with  others,  apostles  and  other  lay 
disciples,  not  as  representing  the  clergy  alone,  but  as  repre- 
senting both  the  clergy  and  laity,  in  short,  the  whole  Church 
or  body  of  His  believing  people  ? 

It  is  apparent  that  the  whole  inquiry  as  to  the  power  of 
binding  and  loosing,  of  forgiving  or  retaining  sin,  depends  on 
the  solution  of  this  question ;  for  if  the  words  of  our  Lord 


150  EVENINGS    WITH   THE    ROMANISTS. 

were  addressed  to  the  apostles  alone,  as  representing  the  minis- 
try of  the  Church,  then  there  is  some  ground  for  confining 
this  power,  whatever  it  be,  to  the  ministry.  But  if,  on  the 
other  hand,  our  Lord  addressed  these  words  to  lay  disciples, 
as  well  as  to  the  twelve  apostles,  then  it  will  be  clear  that  this 
power  belongs  to  the  whole  body  of  the  Church — as  much  to 
the  laity  as  to  the  priesthood. 

This  consideration  greatly  narrows  our  inquiry,  and  lessens 
the  difficulty,  as  it  avoids  all  the  mists  and  clouds  which  the 
dust  of  human  learning  has  gathered  and  thickened  around 
the  subject  to  obscure  and  darken  it. 

Our  first  inquiry  therefore  is,  as  to  the  persons  to  whom  the 
words  in  Matt,  xviii.  18,  are  addressed. 

The  chapter  opens  with  the  statement  that  while  our  Lord 
was  speaking  to  Peter  and  others  on  the  subject  of  miracles 
and  paying  tribute,  other  disciples  came  to  him.  "  At  the 
same  time  came  the  disciples  unto  Jesus,  saying,  Who  is 
greatest  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ?  And  Jesus  called  a  little 
child  unto  him,  and  set  him  in  the  midst,  and  said,"  etc. 
These  words  plainly  imply  that  there  were  other  persons 
beside  the  twelve  apostles  present.  Indeed,  in  reference  to 
some  others,  his  weak  disciples  present,  he  says,  at  verse  10, 
"  Take  heed  that  ye  despise  not  one  of  these  little  ones ;"  and 
again,  at  verse  14 — "It  is  not  the  will  of  your  Father  that 
one  of  these  little  ones  should  perish."  This  language  implies, 
that  besides  the  apostles  there  were  others  present,  who  were 
as  children  in  the  knowledge  of  Christ.  And  beside  this  con- 
sideration, it  is  to  be  observed  that  the  word  is  not  "Apostles," 
but  "  Disciples."  [And  although  these  words  are  sometimes 
convertible  terms,  yet  they  certainly  are  not  always  nor  gene- 
rally so.  In  John,  xxi.  1,  there  are  some  named  as  disciples, 
as  Nathanael  of  Galilee,  who  were  not  apostles.  And  in  Acts 
i.  15,  the  disciples  are  said  to  have  been  one  hundred  and 
twenty  in  number,  and  among  the  number  were  women,  upon 
whom,  as  the  "  daughters"  and  "  handmaids"  of  the  Lord, 
the  Spirit  descended,  as  well  as  on  the  twelve  apostles.  Acts, 
ii.  17.]     And  thus  it  is  to  the  disciples,  in  the  extended  sense, 


CONFESSION    AND    ABSOLUTION,  151 

that  the  words  of  ouv  Lord  in  this  chapter  are  addressed. 
This  is  the  more  apparent  when  we  consider  the  solemn  words 
on  the  subject  of  offenses,  the  offending  hand,  or  foot,  or  eye 
—a  subject  that  runs  from  the  sixth  to  the  tenth  verses,  and 
that  certainly  was  not  designed  for  the  twelve  apostles  alone, 
but  for  all  the  disciples  of  Christ.  And  so  too,  in  all  his 
words,  from  the  eleventh  to  the  fourteenth  verses,  where  he 
speaks  of  his  sheep  that  had  gone  astray,  and  of  himself  as 
the  true  and  loving  She])herd,  that  sought  them  and  found 
them,  and  rejoiced  over  them.  In  like  manner,  all  that 
remarkable  discourse,  from  the  fifteenth  to  the  seventeenth 
verse,  in  which  he  teaches  every  Christian  how  he  is  to  act  in 
reference  to  his  offending  brother.  It  can  not  possibly  be  sup- 
posed to  mean  how  the  twelve  apostles  were  to  act  toward 
each  other,  but  how  all  loving  Christians — all  his  disciples 
were  to  act.  And  again,  when  at  the  nineteenth  verse,  he 
promises  his  presence  among  any  two  or  three  who  assemble 
together  in  his  name,  such  promise  is  assuredly  designed,  not 
merely  for  the  twelve  apostles,  but  for  the  encouragement  and 
the  comfort  of  all  his  faithful  people.  And  then,  when  from 
the  twenty-first  verse  to  the  conclusion  of  the  chapter,  our 
Lord  unfolds  the  forgiving  spirit  of  the  Christian,  and  enforces 
his  precept  by  reference  to  his  own  forgiving  love ;  it  is  im- 
possible to  reflect  even  for  a  moment,  without  the  conviction 
that  all  is  addressed  to  and  designed  for  his  disciples  generally, 
and  not  merely  for  the  twelve  apostles  alone. 

This  being  the  character  of  the  whole  chapter  in  all  its  de- 
tails, it  is  altogether  inconsistent  with  all  right  canons  of  inter- 
pretation, to  select  one  verse  out  of  the  thirty-five — to  select 
one  verse,  the  eighteenth,  and  assert  that  it  is  addressed,  not 
to  the  disciples  generally,  but  to  the  twelve  apostles  alone. 
From  the  fifteenth  verse  to  the  end  of  the  chapter,  our  Lord 
is  speaking  of  the  offenses  and  trespasses  of  Christians  against 
one  another,  and  their  duty  to  forgive  one  another.  And  it 
is  in  the  midst  of  this  he  utters  the  remarkable  words — 
"  Whatsoever  ye  shall  bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound  in 
heaven ;    and   whatsoever  ye  shall  loose  on  earth  shall  be 


152  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

loosed  in  heaven," — words  addressed  not  to  the  twelve  apos- 
tles alone,  but  to  his  disciples  iu  general.  All  right  reasoning 
and  all  just  exposition  alike  demand  that  these  words  be  re- 
garded as  conveying  no  peculiar  or  exclusive  power  to  the 
clergy  alone,  but  that  only  which  belongs  in  common  to  all 
the  people  of  Christ. 

This  consideration  at  once  removes  these  words,  Matt,  xviii. 
18,  from  the  category  of  those  supposed  to  confer  exclusively 
on  the  priesthood  the  power  of  absolution  or  forgiveness. 
They  confer  the  same  power  upon  the  laity.  It  is  not  a  sacer- 
dotal but  a  Christian  forgiveness.  And  addressed,  as  they 
are,  to  all  the  people  of  Christ,  they  convey  the  promise,  that 
if  we,  acting  in  the  loving  and  forgiving  spirit  of  Christ,  shall 
forgive  any  who  sin  against  us,  that  forgiveness  shall  assur- 
edly be  ratified  in  heaven.  If  we  forgive,  He  also  will  forgive. 
And  this  is  our  grand  encouragement  to  forgive  ;  for  that 
forgiveness  will  be  ratified  above. 

The  same  process  of  reasoning  leads  to  the  same  results  in 
reference  to  the  other  place  ^vhere  these  remarkable  words 
occur,  in  John,  xx.  23. 

The  inquiry  here  is — whether  these  words  were  addressed 
to  the  Apostles  alone,  and  through  them  to  the  priesthood  of 
the  Church — or,  whether  they  were  addressed  to  the  apostles 
with  other  discijdes,  and  so  to  the  whole  body  of  the  faithful 
in  Christ. 

This  inquiry  finds  its  solution  by  reference  to  the  parallel 
naiTative  of  the  same  transaction  iu  tlie  Gospel  of  St.  Luke, 
chapter  xxiv. 

It  appears  from  the  first  verse  that  our  Lord  arose  on  the 
first  day  of  the  week.  "  Now  upon  the  first  day  of  the  week, 
very  early  in  the  morning."  It  also  appears  from  the  next 
verse,  that  those  who  first  visited  the  sepulcher  came,  and,  as 
is  said  at  verse  9,  "  told  all  these  things  unto  the  eleven  and 
TO  ALL  THE  REST."  [Note,  that  thcsc  words  imply  the  assem- 
bhng  of  some  others  with  the  apostles.]  It  next  appears,  from 
the  thirteenth  verse,  that  it  was  this  same  day  that  our  Lord 
met  the  two  disciples  at  Emmaus — "  two  of  them  went  that 


CONFESSION    AND    ABSOLUTION.  153 

mme  day  to  a  village  called  Emmaus."  Of  these,  one  at  least, 
whose  name  was  Cleopas,  verse  18,  was  not  an  apostle.  And 
these  the  very  same  day,  as  the  evening  drew  on,  retmiied  to 
the  eleven  apostles  at  Jerusalem.  This  is  stated  at  verse  33 — 
"  They  rose  up  the  same  hour  and  returned  to  Jerusalem,  and 
found  the  eleven  gathered  together,  and  them  that  were 
WITH  THEM,  saying.  The  Lord  is  risen  indeed,  and  hath  ap- 
peared unto  Simon.  And  as  they  thus  spake,  Jesus  himself 
stood  in  the  midst  of  them,  and  said,  Peace  be  unto  you — 
behold  my  hands  and  my  feet,  that  it  is  I  myself ;  handle  me 
and  see." 

From  this  it  is  evident,  that  on  that  solemn  occasion  when 
our  Lord  appeared  among  his  disciples,  on  the  very  evening 
of  the  day  of  his  resurrection,  when  he  spoke  the  blessed 
words,  "  Peace  be  unto  you ;"  and  when  he  showed  them  his 
hands  and  his  feet  in  proof  of  his  identity,  and  that  he  was 
not  merely  a  spirit — that  on  that  solemn  occasion  there  were 
present  not  only  the  apostles,  but  also  the  disciples  of  Em- 
maus, and  others  besides.  The  expression  is  decisive — "  They 
found  the  eleven  gathered  together,  and  them  that  were 
wrrH  them," — an  expression  veiy  similar  to  that  of  verse  9, 
"  to  the  eleven,  and  to  all  the  rest."  So  that  there  can  be 
no  doubt  of  thei'e  being  present  on  that  occasion  several 
Christians,  who  were  not  of  the  number  of  the  apostles,  prob- 
ably a  large  number,  possibly  the  120  we  read  of  in  Acts,  i. 
15.  Now  there  is  nothing  in  sacred  history  more  certain 
than  that  it  was  on  this  very  occasion,  and  to  this  mixed 
assembly,  that  our  Lord  addressed  the  remarkable  words — 
"  Whosesoever  sins  ye  forgive,  they  are  forgiven,  and  whose- 
soever sins  ye  retain,  they  are  retained."  Thereby  conferring 
tliis  power,  whatever  it  be,  not  only  on  the  twelve  apostles,  as 
representing  the  priesthood  of  the  Church,  but  also  on  all  his 
other  faithful  disciples  then  present ;  not  only  to-  all  "  the 
eleven,"  but  to  "  them  that  were  with  them,"  and  "  all  the 
rest."  This  appears,  beyond  all  doubt  or  question,  by  refer- 
ence to  the  gospel  of  John,  who  describes  the  resurrection  as 
having  taken  place  >n  the  first  day  of  the  week ;   and  then 


154  EVENINGS   WITH   THE    ROMANISTS. 

describes  the  appearing  of  our  Lord  in  the  evening  of  that 
same  day,  verse  19,  to  his  "disciples,"  using  the  very  words 
detailed  by  Luke,  "  Peace  be  unto  you  ;"  and  in  the  same 
way  showing  his  hands  and  feet.  "  Then  the  same  day  at 
evening,  being  the  first  day  of  the  week,  when  the  doors  were 
shut  where  the  disciples  were  assembled  for  fear  of  the  Jews, 
came  Jesus  and  stood  in  the  midst,  and  saith  unto  them, 
Peace  be  unto  you.  And  when  he  had  so  said,  he  showed 
unto  them  his  hands  and  his  side.  Then  were  the  disciples 
glad,  when  they  saw  the  Lord.  Then  said  Jesus  to  them 
again,  Peace  be  unto  you  :  as  my  Father  hath  sent  me,  even 
so  send  I  you.  And  when  he  had  said  this,  he  breathed  on 
them,  and  saith  unto  them.  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost: 
"Whosesoever  sins  ye  remit,  they  are  remitted  unto  them ; 
and  whosesoever  sins  ye  retain,  they  are  retained." — John,  xx. 
19 — 23.  The  conclusion  from  this  is  incontestable  ;  namely, 
that  these  words  were  addressed,  not  exclusively  to  the  twelve 
apostles,  as  representing  the  priesthood  of  the  Church,  or  as 
giving  to  them  any  peculiar  or  exclusive  power  over  their 
fellow-siDners  of  the  laity,  but  to  all  other  disciples  or  believ- 
ers then  present ;  thus  conferring  upon  all,  apostles  and  disci- 
ples alike — on  clergy  and  laity  alike — the  very  same  power  or 
privilege — whatever  it  may  be — granting  it  to  all  alike. 

This  consideration  removes  this  text,  like  the  former  one, 
from  the  category  of  those  which  are  supposed  to  confer  ex- 
clusively on  the  priesthood  the  j^ower  of  forgiving  and  retain- 
ing sins.  Whatever  that  power  may  be,  it  clearly  belongs  to 
the  disciples  as  much  as  to  the  apostles — to  the  laity  as  to 

the  CLERGY. 

The  argument  which  I  found  upon  all  this  is,  that  seeing 
the  two  places  wherein  these  words  of  our  Lord  occur,  name- 
ly. Matt,  xviii.  18,  and  John,  xx.  24,  describe  those  words  as 
addressed  to  the  body  of  the  laity  as  much  as  to  the  body  of 
the  clergy,  in  fact  to  the  whole  family  of  disciples  or  Church 
of  Christ ;  so  they  do  not  confer  any  peculiar  power  or  ex- 
clusive privilege  on  the  clergy  as  distinct  from  the  laity.  The 
apostles  were  present,  and  so  may  be  thought  to  represent  the 


CONFESSION    AND    ABSOLUTION.  155 

clergy.  The  laity  were  present,  and  so  may  be  supposed  to 
represent  the  laity.  And  these  remarkable  words  being  ad- 
dressed to  all  alike,  can  not,  on  any  right  rules  of  interpreta- 
tion, be  ascribed  peculiarly  or  exclusively  to  either.  They 
belong  to  the  ivhole  Church  or  body  of  the  faithful. 

There  is  no  answer — and  there  can  be  no  answer — to  this, 
except  that  which  objects  that  it  is  impossible,  or  at  least  im- 
probable, that  the  power  of  absolution  or  forgiveness  should  be 
ceded  to  the  laity — that  it  is  essentially  a  priestly  or  clerical 
function,  and  can  not,  from  its  nature,  belong  to  the  body  of 
the  faithful. 

The  reply  to  this  is  obvious,  at  least,  it  has  ever  seemed  to 
me  to  be  obvious,  and  I  have,  therefore,  always  giv^en  it  in  an- 
swer to  this  objection.  My  reply  is,  that  this  notion  of  absolu- 
tion and  forgiveness  being  a  priestly  act,  and  one  of  which  the 
laity  are  incapable,  is  nothing  else  than  a  mere  prejudice — a 
prejudice  which  has  no  warrant  whatever  from  the  Holy 
Scriptures — a  prejudice  which  has  originated  in  and  been  sus- 
tained by  the  Church  of  Rome ;  and  which,  in  the  darkness 
and  superstition  and  priestcraft  of  the  middle  ages,  had  be- 
come infused  in  all  the  religious  notions  and  theological  books 
for  centuries,  and  which  was  not  clearly  seen  as  such,  and 
cast  out  of  the  Church,  at  the  Reformation.  It  has  thus  been 
mistakenly  fostered  among  us,  and  has  been  the  cause  of 
weakness,  and  sadness,  and  trouble,  and  perplexity  among  us, 
drawing  some  of  our  holiest  minds  in  the  direction  of  dissent, 
and  leading  some  of  our  most  argumentative  minds  in  the 
direction  of  Romanism.  The  ax  should  be  laid  at  its  root,  to 
cut  it  down  as  cmnbering  the  ground.  The  truth  should  be 
stated  broadly.  The  power  of  binding  and  loosing — the 
power  of  absolving  and  retaining — belongs  to  the  laymen  as 
fully  as  to  the  priest.  It  was  ceded  by  Jesus  Christ  to  all  his 
disciples,  to  all  his  faithful  ones ;  in  other  words,  to  all  his 
Church,  composed,  as  it  is,  of  clergy  and  laity.  And  this 
power  belongs  not  exclusively  to  either,  but  equally  to  both. 

It  is  here,  however,  the  question  occurs  as  to  what  may 
be  the  real  meaning  of  these  remarkable  words  of  our  Lord* 


156  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

and  what  is  the  real  range  aud  extent  of  the  power  they  in- 
volve. 

The  answer  to  this  question  must  necessarily  be  such  an  in- 
terpretatiou  of  the  words  as  will  be  applicable  to  the  laity  as 
well  as  to  the  clergy  ;  and  such  a  description  of  a  power  as  be- 
longs to  the  one  as  well  as  to  the  other. 

There  seem  three  kinds  of  forgiveness. 

I.  The  first  is  that  of  a  man  who  forgives,  as  he  has  the  un- 
doubted right,  the  ofienses  or  injuries  of  his  fellow  man  against 
himself.  Every  man,  whether  cleric  or  lay,  possesses  this 
power. 

II.  The  next  is  where  an  offense  or  wrong  is  done  to  a  body 
of  men,  as  a  congregation  or  church  ;  then  it  is  clear  that  such 
body  can  forgive  the  offense  or  wrong  against  itself.  And  in 
such  case  the  body  may  delegate  one  or  more  of  its  number  to 
communicate  that  forgiveness,  or  to  give  that  forgiveness  in 
its  name.  The  minister  or  ministers  of  the  body  are  very  fit- 
ting persons  to  be  invested  with  this  delegated  authority,  and 
thus  may  absolve  offenders  in  the  name  of  the  whole  body  of 
the  church  ;  but  it  is  clear  that,  iu  this  case,  they  do  it  as  the 
representatives  of  the  laity,  aud  not  0.5  the  delegates  of  God. 
Their  power  or  authority  is  from  the  church  and  not  from 
God. 

ni.  There  is  another  way  in  Avhich  a  man  may  be  said  to 
forgive  ; — namely,  when  he  declares  and  pronounces  the  for- 
giveness of  another  ;  as  when  he  proclaims  the  forgiveness  of 
God  to  the  repentant  sinner.  It  is  clear  that  this  can  be  done 
by  either  clergyman  or  layman.  But  it  is  equally  clear  that 
the  former  is  authorized  and  the  other  not — that  the  clergy- 
man is  especially  appointed,  charged,  commissioned  to  pro- 
chiim  the  forgiveness  in  such  a  way  as  the  layman  can  not  do. 
The  criminal  under  sentence  of  death  may  be  pardoned  by 
his  gracious  sovereign.  Any  man  who  has  access  to  the  crim- 
inal may  inform  him  of  this,  but  the  sheriff  alone  is  the  official 
authorized  to  do  so,  and  therefore  it  is  only  his  announcement 
that  satifies  the  criminal.  And  so  in  the  proclamation  of  the 
gospel ;  any  man  may  proclaim  it  to  the  sinner.     The  minister 


CONFESSION    AND    ABSOLUTION.  loY 

of  God  is  appointed  especially  to  do  so.  The  foiiner  is  un- 
autliorized.  The  latter  speaks  authoritatively.  lu  either  case 
it  is  God  alone  who  forgives,  and  his  minister  only  declares 
and  pronounces  it. 

This  gives  us  a  key  to  the  full  understanding  of  the  words 
of  our  Lord.  They  are  taken  from  the  forms  of  the  Levitical 
law.  By  that  law,  in  reference  to  leprosy,  [and  leprosy  under 
the  law  was  a  type  of  sin  under  the  gospel,]  there  was  an 
authority  given  to  the  priest  to  examine  every  infected  per- 
son. And  when  he  found  him  infected,  he  had  authority  to 
pronounce  him  unclean,  that  is,  diseased,  and  immediately 
had  him  "  shut  up"  or  "  hound,"  that  so  he  might  not  mingle 
in  the  congregation.  After  a  little  space  the  j^riest  was  to  see 
him  again  ;  and  if  the  leprosy  was  gone,  he  was  to  pronounce 
him  clean,  that  is,  healthy,  and  so  "  absolve"  or  "  loose"  the 
man,  permitting  him  again  to  mingle  with  the  people.  This 
is  the  allusion  in  the  words  of  our  Lord.  He  gives  the  power 
of  binding  and  loosing — forgiving  and  retaining  sins.  It  is 
clear — as  clear  as  if  written  with  a  sunbeam — that  the  power 
of  the  Levitical  priests  was  only  a  declarative  power,  a  power 
to  declare  and  pronounce  the  healthy  or  diseased  state  of  the 
man.  They  could  not  make  the  man  either  healthy  or  dis- 
eased. They  neither  gave  the  leprosy  nor  took  it  away. 
That  was  the  act  of  God  himself.  And  the  authority  given 
to  the  priests  was  only  to  declare  and  pronounce  that  which 
God  had  done.  It  was  a  power  purely  declarative.  Now  as 
it  was  this  which  was  in  the  mind  of  our  Lord  when  he  spoke 
these  words,  the  inference  is  only  natural  that  the  power 
Avhich  he  gave  was  only  a  declarative  power — a  power  to  de- 
clare and  pronounce  the  repentant  sinner  to  be  forgiven  :  not 
to  forgive  him,  but  to  declare  and  pronounce  him  forgiven. 
The  forp-iveness  was  the  act  of  God  himself,  and  the  author- 
ity  he  gave  was  to  declare  and  pronounce  that  which  was 
done  by  Himself. 

That  thi;-  is  the  true  purport  of  our  Lord's  words,  and  the 
real  nature  of  the  power  given,  will  appear  from  a  concise, 
simple,  and  scriptural  argument.     "We  read — "  And  the  Lord 


158  EVENINGS    Wim    THE    ROMANISTS. 

spake  unto  Moses  and  Aaron,  saying,  When  a  man  shall  have 
in  the  skin  of  his  flesh  a  rising,  a  scab,  or  bright  spot,  and  it 
be  in  the  skin  of  his  flesh  like  the  plague  of  leprosy ;  then  he 
shall  be  brought  unto  Aaron  the  priest,  or  unto  one  of  his 
sons  the  prfests  :  and  the  priest  shall  look  on  the  plague  in  the 
skin  of  the  flesh  :  and  when  the  hair  in  the  plague  is  turned 
white,  and  the  plague  in  sight  be  deeper  than  the  skin  of  his 
flesh,  it  is  a  plague  of  leprosy :  and  the  priest  shall  look  on 
him,  and  pronounce  him  unclean.  If  the  bright  S230t  be  white 
in  the  skin  of  his  flesh,  and  in  sight  be  not  deeper  than  the 
skin,  and  the  hair  thereof  be  not  turned  white  ;  then  the 
priest  shall  shut  ujy  him  that  hath  the  plague  seven  days  :  and 
the  priest  shall  look  on  him  the  seventh  day :  and,  behold,  if 
the  plague  in  his  sight  be  at  a  stay,  and  the  plague  spread  not 
in  the  skin  ;  then  the  priest  shall  shut  him  up  seven  days 
more :  and  the  priest  shall  look  on  him  again  the  seventh 
day  :  and,  behold,  if  the  plague  be  somewhat  dark,  and  the 
plague  spread  not  in  the  skin,  the  priest  shall  pronounce  him 
clean :  it  is  but  a  scab :  and  he  shall  wash  his  clothes,  and  be 
clean." — Leviticus  xiii.  1-6. 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  priest  is  here  said  to  pronounce 
him  unclean,  at  the  third  verse,  and  to  pronounce  him  clean 
at  the  sixth  verse.  Again,  we  read  at  verses  11-13. — "It  is 
an  old  leprosy  in  the  skin  of  his  flesh,  and  the  priest  shall 
pi'onounce  him  unclean,  and  shall  not  shut  him  up :  for  he  is 
unclean.  And  if  a  leprosy  break  out  abroad  in  the  skin,  and 
the  leprosy  cover  all  the  skin  of  him  that  hath  the  plague 
from  his  head  even  to  his  foot,  wheresoever  the  priest  looketh ; 
then  the  priest  shall  consider :  and,  behold,  if  the  leprosy 
have  covered  all  his  flesh,  he  shall  pronounce  him  clean  that 
hath  the  plague  :  it  is  all  turned  white :  he  is  clean." 

Again,  we  read  in  verses  15-17 — "And  the  priest  shall  see 
the  raw  flesh,  and  pronounce  him  to  be  unclean  :  for  the  raw 
flesh  is  miclean :  it  is  a  leprosy.  Or  if  the  raw  flesh  turn 
again,  and  be  changed  unto  white,  he  shall  come  unto  the 
piiest ;  and  the  priest  shall  see  him :  and,  behold,  if  the  plague 


CONFESSION    AND    ABSOLUTION.  159 

be  turned  into  white ;  then  the  priest  shall  pronounce  him 
clean  that  hath  the  plague  :  he  is  clean." 

It  will  be  observed  in  all  these,  and  the  other  places 
throughout  this  chapter,  that  the  priest  is  said  to  pronounce 
the  man  unclean,  or  to  pronounce  him  clean.  And  it  is  evi- 
dent HE  COULD  DO  NO  MORE :  He  could  not  impart  the  lep- 
rosy, neither  could  he  take  away  the  leprosy.  That  was  the 
work  of  God  alone.  The  priest  had  power  only  to  pronounce 
or  declare  the  man  infected  or  not  infected,  unclean  or  clean ; 
and  then,  according  to  such  declaration,  the  man  was  bound 
or  loosed,  separated  from  the  congregation  or  permitted  to 
mingle  in  the  congregation.  Now,  the  point  of  the  argument, 
as  connected  with  this  chapter,-  is  this  :  In  the  Septuagint 
version  of  the  Scriptures,  which  was  the  version  in  general 
use  among  the  Jews  in  the  days  of  our  Lord  and  His  Apostles, 
the  priest  in  this  chapter  is  not  said,  as  in  our  translation,  to 
pronounce  the  man  unclean,  but  he  is  said  to  unclean  or  pol- 
lute the  man  ;  and  he  is  not  said  to  pronounce  the  man  clean, 
but  he  is  said  to  clean  tlie  man.  He  is  said  to  do  that  which 
he  only  declares  or  pronounces  to  be  done.  His  powers  were 
not  to  afflict  the  man  with  leprosy,  or  to  take  away  the  lep- 
rosy ;  not  to  make  the  man  unclean  or  make  the  man  clean  ; 
that  rested  with  God  alone,  but  his  powers  were  to  pronounce 
and  declare  him  to  be  clean,  or  to  pronounce  and  declare  him 
to  be  unclean,  according  as  he  found  him.  Now  as  this  was 
the  version  of  the  Scriptures,  in  general  use  in  the  days  of 
our  Lord,  and  the  version  usually  quoted  by  him  ;  so  from 
that  very  circumstance  this  form  of  expression  was  one  which 
our  Lord  was  very  likely  to  use,  and  which  his  apostles  and 
disciples  were  likely  to  understand.  When,  therefore.  He 
empowered  them  to  remit  or  retain  sin,  and  so  bind  or  loose 
the  sinner.  He  merely  used  the  language  of  the  Levitical  law, 
and  must  have  designed  them  to  understand  that  they,  like 
the  Levitical  priesthood,  were  to  declare  and  pronounce  the 
forgiveness  or  nonforgiveness  of  sin,  and  so  bind  or  loose  the 
sinner; — that  as  the  Levitical  priesthood  were  authorized  to 
declare  and  pronounce  a  man  clean  or  unclean  in  the  matter 


160  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    KOMANISTS. 

of  leprosy,  so  now  his  disciples  were  to  declare  and  pronounce 
the  forgiveness  or  non-forgiveness  of  God  in  the  matter  of  sin. 
And  therefore,  I  conclude,  that  in  using  this  language  our 
Lord  designed  to  impart  an  authority  to  his  people,  not  to 
grant  His  forgiveness  or  to  refuse  His  forgiveness ;  which 
belonged  to  himself  alone,  but  in  His  name  to  declare  and 
pronounce  His  forgiveness  to  the  sinner. 

And  now,  to  bring  all  this  argument  to  a  point :  I  hold 
that  every  man  lay  as  well  as  clerical,  has  authority  to  pro- 
claim the  Gospel,  to  preach  Christ.  And  I  hold,  also,  that 
every  man,  lay  as  well  as  clerical,  has  authority  to  declare  and 
pronounce  Christ's  absolution  and  forgiveness  of  sin  to  all  those 
that  repent.  This  is  the  inherent  birthright  of  every  child  of 
God — the  inheritance  into  which  he  is  engrafted  when  he  is 
born  again  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  is  true  that  the  church, 
that  is,  the  clergy  and  laity  combined,  may  find  it  wise  and 
convenient  and  salutary  to  delegate  this  authority,  and  es- 
pecially ■with  reference  to  offenses  against  the  church,  more 
especially  to  a  portion  of  their  number,  namely,  to  the  clergy, 
as  hanng  been  specially  dedicated  to  this  work.  And  it  may, 
perhaps,  be  found  wise  and  convenient  and  salutary  that  the 
clergy  should  thus  exercise,  in  the  name  of  the  church,  this 
special  and  delegated  authority ;  but  then  they  do  it,  and 
must  do,  and  can  only  do  it,  as  from  the  church  ; — not  as 
from  Christ,  but  only  as  from  the  church  which,  has  com- 
mitted this  delegated  authority  to  them.  Jesus  Christ  has 
retained  to  himself  the  power  of  forgiveness  of  sins.  He 
alone  can  forgive  sins  against  God.  And  his  church,  that  is, 
the  clergy  and  laity  combined,  which  of  course  can  forgive 
sins  against  herself,  can  absolve  the  sinner  by  receiving  him 
into  her  communion. 

I  believe  that  a  candid  examination  of  Matt,  xviii.  18,  in 
its  context,  will  show  that  our  Lord  is  alluding  only  to  the 
offenses  or  injuries  done  among  us,  against  each  other — that 
he  gives  us  the  power  to  forgive  each  other,  promising  to 
ratify  it  in  heaven.  And  it  is  probable  that  the  place  in  John 
XX.  23,  may  refer  either  to  the  same  thing,  or  to  offenses  or 


CONFESSION    AND    ABSOLUTION.  161 

injuries  to  the  churcli  at  large  ;  tlius  giving  to  the  church  the 
power  of-  forgiving  those  who  have  Avronged  her.  And  if  the 
words  in  either  place  can  be  interpreted  of  sins  as  against 
God — a  most  doubtful  supposition,  and  one  that  has  not  the 
least  warrant  from  Holy  Scripture — they  must  be  explained 
by  the  principles  of  the  Levitlcal  law ;  under  that  law  the 
priests  declared  and  pronounced  on  the  cleanness  and  un- 
cleanness  of  the  leper,  and  those  priests  were  the  type  of  all 
believers ;  who  constitute  "  the  spiritual  priesthood,"  and 
who,  whether  clerical  or  lay,  can  declare  and  pronounce  the 
forgiveness  of  God  in  Christ,  for  every  sinner  who  repents 
and  believes  the  Gospel ;  and  who,  if  clerical  or  ministerial, 
that  is,  specially  chosen  and  sent  as  the  ministers  of  the 
Church  and  the  heralds  of  the  Gospel,  are  specially  authorized 
to  do  this. 

I  feel  it  to  be  a  great  practical  objection  to  the  whole  sys- 
tem of  auricular  confession  and  absolution,  that  it  is  incom- 
patible with  the  purity  of  divine  justice.  In  order  that  di- 
vine justice  may  be  truly  pure  it  must  be  dispensed  by  impar- 
tial and  by  discriminating  hands.  And  there  is,  therefore, 
nothins:  more  essential  than  that  the  God  of  all  the  earth 
should  retain  it  in  his  own  hands.  It  is  God  himself  who  tries 
the  sinner.  It  is  God  himself  who  holds  the  balance.  It  is 
God  himself  who  holds  the  sword  of  judgment  or  the  scepter 
of  mercy.  Thus,  in  our  Protestant  principles,  all  is  well.  But 
it  is  far  otherwise  in  the  Church  of  Rome.  In  the  blindness  of 
poor  fallen  man,  in  the  clouded  judgment  of  miserable  man,  in 
the  partialities,  and  prejudices,  and  corruptions  of  human  nature, 
there  can  be  no  adequate  security  for  the  due  and  righteous 
administration  of  divine  justice ;  it  would  be  Avholly  inconsist- 
ent with  the  equality  of  God's  dealings,  to  delegate  a  power 
which  requires  divine  perfection,  omniscience,  and  purity,  to  a 
creature  so  fallen  as  man.  He  is  an  unfitting  judge  for  the  eter- 
nal destinies  of  his  fellow-men.  "With  such  a  belief,  nothing 
can  give  security.  There  should  be  the  plainest,  and  most  un- 
mistakable evidence  of  His  delegating  this  power  of  forgiving 
or  condemning  sin  to  any  one  class  or  caste  of  the  human  fam- 


162  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

ily,  before  we  can  believe  it.     And  that  plain  and  unmistaka- 
ble evidence  is  not  pretended. 

So  far  from  this  being  the  case,  we  may  argue  beforehand 
its  impossibility — its  entire  inconsistency  with  the  majesty  of 
the  Godhead.  For  what  is  the  loveliest  and  most  glorious  at- 
tribute in  the  Divine  nature,  if  it  be  not  the  forgiveness  of 
sins  ?  what  is  the  brightest  and  most  glorious  jewel  in  the 
crown  of  the  Eternal,  if  it  be  not  the  forgiveness  of  sins  ? 
And  can  it  be — can  we  for  a  moment  imagine,  that  Jehovah 
has  committed  that  which  is  the  glory  of  His  nature,  the  es- 
sence of  His  reconciled  Godhead,  and  the  jewel  of  His  royal 
diadem,  into  the  hands  of  man — that  He  has  parted  with  the 
noblest  attribute  of  His  Godhead,  and  delegated  the  scepter  of 
mercy  into  the  hands  of  men  ?  We  believe,  that  God  has 
reserved  all  His  essential  attributes  to  Himself.  He  is  omnis- 
cient, and  He  has  communicated  that  omniscience  to  none,  or 
otherwise  He  would  not  be  the  alone  Omniscient :  He  is  om- 
nipresent, and  has  delegated  His  omnipresence  to  none,  or  oth- 
erwise He  would  not  be  the  alone  Omnipresent :  He  is  omnipo- 
tent, and  He  has  imparted  His  omnipotence  to  none,  or  other- 
wise He  would  not  be  the  alone  Omnipotent.  And  the  same  is 
true  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins.  The  delegation  of  such  pre- 
rogatives to  the  creature,  would  be  placing  the  creature  on  an 
equahty  with  the  Creator.  He  could  not  himself  extend  for- 
giveness to  fallen  man  till  He  had  given  His  own  Son  to  make 
atonement  for  the  sins  of  man.  Our  forgiveness  cost  the  Lord 
Jesus  the  glories  of  the  heavens  which  He  forsook,  the  suflfer- 
ings  of  the  earth  which  he  entered,  the  humiliation  of  the 
flesh  which  He  undertook,  the  agony  and  bloody  sweat,  the 
exceeding  sorrow  of  His  soul  unto  death,  and  the  slow,  linger- 
ing, horrid  death  of  the  cross.  Our  forgiveness  cost  Him  ag- 
onies no  tongue  can  tell :  for  they  were  infinite  as  the  sins  for 
which  He  suffered,  and  as  the  justice  which  He  satisfied. 
And  it  can  not  be,  that  the  jewel  of  forgiveness,  that  brightest 
gem  in  the  diadem  of  our  reconciled  God,  that  precious  treas- 
ure which  He  has  purchased  at  such  a  price  as  the  blood  of 
the  cross,  and  which  flashes  the  most  brilliant  luster  of  all  else 


CONFESSION    AND    ABSOLUTION.  163 

tliat  is  seen  in  the  heavens — it  can  not  be,  that  He  has  given 
this  to  the  defiled  hands  and  the  perverted  judgments  and 
fallen  hearts  of  sinners  like  ourselves,'  that  we  may  have  the 
dispensing  of  his  treasures  to  others.  He  has  no  more  delegat- 
ed to  man  the  power  of  forgiveness  than  He  has  delegated 
to  man  the  power  of  creation.  And  the  priests  or  ministers  of 
the  Church  might  assume  the  Divine  prerogative  of  creation, 
as  well  and  as  reasonably,  as  assume  the  Divine  prerogative  of 
forgiveness.  For  mortal  and  fallen  man,  yea,  for  immortal 
and  unfaUen  angel,  to  pretend  to  the  powers — the  Divine  pow- 
ers of  creation,  were  not  a  greater  offense  to  the  glory  of  the 
alone  Creator,  than  for  either  man  or  angel  to  pretend  to  the 
powers — the  Divine  powers,  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins. 

I  was  once  discussing  this  point  with  a  Roman  Catholic 
priest,  in  the  presence  of  some  twenty  Roman  Catholics. 
They  had  brought  him  to  me  and  had  put  him  forward  to  vin- 
dicate against  me  the  power  of  forgiveness  which  he  claimed. 

I  argued  on  that  occasion,  in  a  particular  manner,  with  a 
view  to  the  answer  which  I  expected  to  receive  from  him  and 
from  all  present,  as  I  knew  that  my  rejoinder  would  then  be 
more  effective.  I  argued  that  God  in  his  mercy  and  loving- 
kindness  would  never  have  given  to  man  a  power  so  injurious 
to  morality  and  so. calculated  to  encourage  sin. 

Wlien  once  men  can  be  brought  to  believe  that  priests 
and  ministers  have  power  to  forgive  sins — to  forgive  the  sins 
of  the  sinner  against  God,  they  become  the  veriest  servants  of 
those  priests  and  ministers.  We  know  from  Holy  Scripture, 
and  all  history  and  experience  j^rove  its  truth,  that  men  are 
willing  to  sacrifice  thousands  of  rams,  to  offer  ten  thousand 
rivers  of  oil,  and  to  give  the  fruit  of  their  body,  to  get  rid  of 
the  sin  of  their  soul.  If,  therefore,  such  men  can  be  brought 
to  believe,  that  priests  and  ministers  hold  in  their  hands  the 
scepter  of  forgiveness,  they  will  become  the  veriest  bondsmen 
— bound  hand  and  foot  at  the  feet  of  those  who  possess  this 
power ;  and  they  will  lay  all  their  wealth  at  the  feet  of  these 
priests  and  ministers,  in  order  to  purchase  at  their  hands  the 
forgiveness  of  their  sins.     And  this,  too,  without  any  repent- 


164  EVENINGS    WITH    THE   ROMANISTS. 

ance  before  God.  The  most  abandoned  profligate,  the  most 
filthy  debauchee,  the  assassin,  murderer,  and  villain,  can  secure 
forgiveness  for  all  theseTiateful  enormities,  if  only  he  can  satisfy 
the  priest  or  minister.  And  knowing  as  we  do,  the  weakness 
and  corruption  of  human  nature,  we  can  not  be  surprised  at 
that  which  all  history  witnesses,  that  between  money  and  fa- 
vor and  patronage,  a  rich  man  finds  little  difficulty  in  satisfy- 
ing the  priest  or  minister.  The  rich  man  has  only  to  secure 
a  soft,  easy  confessor,  or  a  poor,  cringing  confessor,  or  a  vicious 
and  profligate  confessor,  and  if  once  he  has  secured  such  a 
man,  he  has  only  to  cajole  the  soft  priest,  to  bribe  the  poor 
priest,  to  feed  the  cringing  priest,  to  promote  the  aspiring 
priest,  and  to  wink  at  the  profligate  priest,  and  then  he  is  se- 
cure of  the  forgiveness  of  his  sins.  If  this  were  part  and 
parcel  of  Christianity — as  it  is  part  and  parcel  of  Popery — it 
would  be  worse  than  heathenism  itself,  for  it  would  enable 
men  to  sin  and  be  forgiven,  and  sin  again  and  bo  forgiven 
again ;  and  a  little  favor,  and  more  management  and  abund- 
ance of  money,  would  be  sure  to  secure  forgiveness. 

I  have  said  nothing  of  the  scenes  of  temptation  that  are 
necessarily  associated  with  the  confessional.  It  is  in  the 
sphere  of  every  man's  experience,  that  if  he  has  by  any  means 
discovered  the  hidden  thing — the  secret  thing  of  a  woman's 
heart — if  he  has  discovered  her  great  secret,  perhaps  a  secret 
that  nestled  in  her  own  breast  unknown  to  all  beside,  a  secret 
of  her  sin,  of  her  crime,  or  her  sinful  tendencies  and  her  un- 
holy thoughts,  it  is,  I  say  in  the  sphere  of  every  man's  ex- 
perience, that  that  woman  whose  secret  he  thus  knows  is  in 
his  power.  How  he  may  be  disposed  to  use  his  power  is 
another  question ;  but  he  knows  that  that  woman  is  in  his 
power,  and  full  often  he  may  use  that  power  for  the  worst 
and  basest  of  purposes.  It  is  also  in  the  sphere  of  any  wo- 
man's experience,  that  if  she  has  committed  any  crime  against 
the  laws — any  sin  against  morality,  she  tiies  to  guard  her  se- 
cret in  the  depths  of  her  own  heart,  and  she  feels  that  if  she 
divulge  it  to  any  man,  or  if  any  man  has  got  possession  of  it, 
she  is  in  his  power.     She  is  no  longer  her  own  mistress,  she 


CONFESSION    AND    ABSOLUTION.  165 

becomes  his  slave.  Fear  and  suspicion  of  liis  betraying  her 
places  her  forever  at  his  feet,  she  can  not  refuse  him  any  de- 
mand. And  it  is  the  same  between  man  and  man.  And 
this  is  the  confessional ;  it  places  the  secret  of  every  woman 
in  the  breast  of  the  priest,  she  is  thus  in  his  power  for  every 
purpose.  It  places  the  secret  of  every  man  in  the  power  of 
the  priest.  He  is  from  that  moment  his  slave.  This  is  an 
objection  to  the  confessional  to  which  I  know  of  no  satisfac- 
tory reply.  For  it  necessarily  places  both  the  priest  and  the 
penitent  under  circumstances  too  trying  for  flesh  and  blood. 
Priests  may  be  priests,  but  still  the  experience  of  mankind 
shows  they  are  flesh  and  blood  like  others.  And  sure  I  am, 
that,  considering  the  nature  of  the  communications  that  pass 
— considering  their  indelicacy  and  indecency — considering 
they  go  not  to  the  actions,  but  to  the  secret  thoughts  and  con- 
cealed desires,  all  the  most  private,  personal,  mysterious  feel- 
ings of  our  fleshly  nature — sure  I  am,  that  that  God  who  de- 
sired us  to  pray,  that  we  be  not  led  into  temptation,  never 
himself  required  us  to  ruali  into  that  worst  of  all  scenes  of 
temptation — the  Roman  Confessional. 

And  then,  finally,  I  have  said  nothing  of  that  which  inter- 
feres with  all  the  most  sacred  sanctities  of  home,  where  the 
husband  and  wife  should  live  and  love  in  the  most  perfect  and 
mutual  confidence.  There — there  amid  our  homes,  and  be- 
side our  hearths,  sits  the  priest  of  the  confessional.  That  man, 
by  means  of  the  confessional,  knows  more  of  the  wife's  heart 
and  thoughts  and  feehngs,  he  has  more  of  her  confidence,  and 
knows  more  of  her  secrets,  than  even  her  own  husband. 
Whatever  thought  of  evil  or  of  good  has  place  in  her  mind 
— whatever  feeling  of  fondness,  or  of  alienations  of  love,  or 
of  coldness,  has  found  a  home  in  her  heart — whatever  desire 
of  infidelity  to  her  vows,  or  of  first  love  to  her  husband  has 
laid  hold  of  her  flesh — whatever  it  be,  it  is  known  to  the 
confessor.  All  may  be  kept  secret  and  unknown  from  all 
others,  a  cherished  secret,  and  a  mystery  within  her,  scarcely 
breathed  to  herself,  and  concealed  even  from  her  husband — 
all  is  revealed  in  the  confessional.     All  is  known,  for  it  has 


166  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

been  whispered  in  the  ear  of  that  confidant  of  another  sex — 
that  most  dangerous  of  all  things,  the  unmarried  confidant  of 
another  sex — the  man  of  the  confessional  !  There  he  sits  be- 
tween the  husband  and  the  wife.  By  day  and  by  night  he 
has  more  of  the  secret  confidence — more  of  the  secrets,  the 
heart-secrets  of  each,  than  is  known  to  each  other.  There  he 
sits,  sometimes  the  kindly  adviser,  and  sometimes  the  lascivi- 
ous tempter.  There  he  sits,  a  mysterious  being,  knowing  the 
heart-secrets  of  both — ^knowing  perhaps  the  secret  infidelity 
of  both,  and  thus  having  both  in  his  power,  able  to  wield  them 
both  to  his  personal  purpose.  There  he  sits,  the  living  and 
continual  representative  of  that  scene,  when  in  the  Garden  of 
Eden,  the  man  and  the  woman  li\'ed  and  loved  together,  and 
were  holy  when  alone,  but  one  entered,  and  there  was  whisper- 
ing with  the  woman,  and  insidious  questions  were  put  to  her, 
and  she  fell  !     It  was  the  type  of  the  confessional. 

Note. — It  is  a  favorite  objection  against  iis,  that  in  tho  Church  of 
England  the  power  of  forgiving  sins  is  claimed  as  strongly  as  in  the 
Church  of  Rome.  And  when  it  is  said,  in  reply  to  this,  that  the 
Church  of  England  merely  authorizes  a  declarative  forgiveness — "power 
to  declare,  and  pronounce  to  his  people  being  penitent,  the  absolution 
and  remission  of  their  sins ;"  that  is,  a  power,  not  to  forgive,  but  only 
to  "  declare  and  pronounce"  that  "  God  pardoneth  and  absolveth  all 
them  that  truly  repent,  and  unfeignedly  believe  in  his  holy  Gospel." 
When  this  is  said  in  reply  to  the  objection,  it  is  usually  met  by  a  refer- 
ence to  the  form  of  absolution  used  in  the  ofiQce  for  the  visitation  of 
the  sick. 

The  form  is  as  follows,  and  will  be  found  to  be  merely  the  exponent 
of  the  opinions  already  expressed. 

"  Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ — who  hath  left  power  to  his  Church,  to 
absolve  all  sinners  who  truly  repent  and  believe  in  Him— forgive  thee 
thine  offenses.  And  by  his  authority  committed  to  me,  I  absolve  thee 
of  all  thy  sins  in  the  name  of  the  Eather,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the 
Holy  Ghost." 

Here  the  power  of  forgiveness  of  sins  is  expressly  reserved,  as  the  ac); 
and  promise  of  Jesus  Christ ;  and  the  words  are  in  the  form  of  a  prayer, 
that  Jesus  Christ  might  forgive  the  sinner.  "  The  Loi  d  Jesus  Christ- 
forgive  thee  thine  offenses." 

And  the  power  of  absolving  is  expressly  attributed  to  the  Churoh, 


CONFESSION    AND    ABSOLUTION.  lOY 

not  to  the  clergy  or  priesthood  alone,  but  to  the  church,  which  is  de- 
fined as  "a  congregation  of  faithful  people,  etc.,"  consisting  of  both 
clergy  and  laity ;  and  this  power,  for  communion,  is  committed  by  the 
church  to  the  acting  clergyman. 

Thus  the  forgiveness  of  sins  is  described  as  the  special  work  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ.  And  the  absolving  is  ascribed  to  the  Church, 
tnat  is,  to  the  clergy  and  laity  combined.  Now  this  absolution  is  a  very 
different  thing  from  forgiveness.  The  latter  belongs  exclusively  to 
Christ ;  the  former  He  has  given  to  the  Church.  The  difference  be- 
tween them  is  this : — As  the  Levitical  priest  looked  on  the  leper  who 
was  healed,  he  saw  that  God  had  healed  or  cleansed  him ;  and  that 
he  might  now  loose  him  from  the  restraint  that  prevented  his  mingling 
with  the  people.  God  healed  or  cleansed  the  man.  The  priest  pro- 
nounced him  so  healed  or  cleansed  of  God,  and  loosed  him  of  his  re- 
straint. So  under  the  Gospel,  it  is  only  Christ  that  can  forgive  the 
sin  of  the  sinner.  And  when  the  minister  sees  the  repentance  of  the 
sinner — sees  that  Christ  has  forgiven  him  and  given  him  repentance — 
he  absolves  him,  that  is,  he  frees  him  from  the  restraint  which  the 
discipline  of  the  church  has  imposed  upon  him,  and  thus  receives  him 
again  into  the  communion  of  the  church.  Christ  has  given  forgive- 
ness. The  minister  of  the  church  then  absolves  the  man.  The  truth 
is,  that  the  old  language  of  theology  applied  the  word  "forgiveness"  to 
the  sin  of  the  soul,  in  its  relation  to  God ;  while  it  applied  the  word 
"  absolution"  to  the  position  of  the  offending  man,  in  relation  to  the 
church. 

I  have  frequently  stated,  when  giving  this  answer  to  my  friends  of 
the  Church  of  Rome,  that  I  felt  the  objection  ought  never  to  have 
come  from  them — that  when  the  Liturgy  was  in  process  of  compila- 
tion, a  very  large  proportion  of  the  population  still  retained  their  old 
love ;  perhaps,  a  superstitious,  but  certainly  a  very  old  love  for  the 
Roman  absolution  in  the  point  of  death — that  in  a  kindly,  and  loving, 
and  motherly  spirit  toward  such  weak  consciences — toward  such  weak 
children,  the  Church  of  England  consented,  that  to  such  as  "  humbly 
and  heartily  desire  it,"  the  minister  should  pronounce  this  absolution. 
She  did  this  in  the  fullness  of  love,  and  gentleness,  and  compassion 
for  them  and  their  weak  consciences  ;  and  all  she  guarded  against  was 
— that  she  should  not  seem  to  claim  the  power  of  forgiving  the  sin. 
She,  therefore,  carefully  ascribes  this  to  Christ  alone  ;  and  only  claims 
to  her  herself  the  right  to  absolution.  Having  done  this  in  so  true 
and  compassionate  a  spirit  toward  those  who  were  still  so  much  Ro- 
.manists,  I  feel  that  the  objection  ought  never  to  have  come  from  the 
Church  of  Rome. 


THE  USE  OF  AN  UNKNOWN  LANGUAGE  IN 
PUBLIC  WORSHIP. 

The  Use  of  the  Latin  Tongue  in  all  the  Liturgical  Services  of  the  Church  of  Rome 
—Its  Incapacity  for  Edifying  the  People— Considered  as  a  Matter  of  Discipline- 
Its  Inconsistency  with  the  Gift  of  Tongues— Its  Opposition  to  the  Holy  Scriptures 
— Its  supposed  Convenience  for  Travelers— Its  alleged  Universality  and  Antiquity 
considered— The  Devotional  Books  read  during  the  Public  Services — The  Ar- 
gument based  on  Unity  or  Uniformity  in  Worship — Its  supposed  Justification  in 
Holy  Scripture. 

The  following  conversatiou  arose  out  of  a  public  meeting. 
It  was  a  meeting  of  the  Bible  Society,  and  was  held  in  a  vil- 
lage, small  and  remote.  I  bad  spoken,  and  in  referring  to  the 
opposition  to  the  circulation  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  then 
warmly  carried  on  by  the  Roman  Catholic  priestbood,  I  ex- 
pressed my  surprise  at  the  apparent  inconsistency  tbey  ex- 
hibited. I  stated  that  they  celebrated  the  sacrifices  of  the 
mass  in  the  Latin  tongue — a  tongue  which  was  not  under- 
stood, probably,  by  one  solitary  individual  in  the  congregation. 
It  v/as  to  them  hard,  indeed  impossible  to  be  understood  ;  and 
yet  the  people  attended  but  understood  not,  and  they  heard 
but  understood  not ;  but  they  still  attended  and  still  heard, 
and  were  taught  and  required,  as  necessary  to  salvation,  still 
to  attend  and  still  to  hear,  although  they  felt  and  knew  that 
they  could  not  understand  a  word  of  it.  I  then  said  that  the 
inconsistency  of  the  Roman  Catholic  priests  was  this — they 
commanded  the  people  not  to  read  or  hear  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures, because  they  were  hard  to  be  understood — because  none 
but  the  learned  could  understand  them — because  the  ignorant 
people  could  not  understand  them  ;  whereas  they  commanded 
the  people  to  attend  and  hear  mass,  which  was  celebrated  in 
the  Latin  language,  although  it  was  impossible  to  uuderstand 


-      *  THE    USE    OF    AX    UNKNOWN    LANGUAGE.  169 

it.  There  was  hero  an  iuconsistency,  for  if  the  difficulty  of 
understanding  the  language  of  Holy  Scripture  were  a  sufficient 
reason  for  not  reading  or  hearing  them  ;  then  the  difficulty  of 
understanding  the  Latin  language  of  the  mass  must  be  a  suf- 
ficient reason  for  not  attending  or  hearing  it. 

This  argument  had  made  a  considerable  impression  on  some 
Eoman  Catholics  who  were  present  in  the  meeting ;  and  the 
following  conversation  was  with  one  of  these.  It  commenced 
with  some  reference  to  the  foregoing  inconsistency,  and  after 
a  time  turned  altogether  upon  the  practice  of  the  Church  of 
Rome. 

I  was  careful  that  I  should  not  speak  in  a  tone  of  contro- 
versy, as  if  searching  to  show  how  widely  we  difiered ;  but 
rather  to  speak  to  his  judgment  and  common  sense  and  good 
feeling,  and  then  lead  him  to  the  inferences  he  might  himself 
be  disposed  to  draw. 

I  commenced,  by  saying,  that  I  thought  the  great  mission 
of  the  church  was,  by  teaching  and  instruction  to  overcome 
the  io-noranee  and  the  indifference  of  the  world — that  the  vice 
and  immorality  that  prevailed  seemed  to  spring  from  our  fallen 
nature — and  that  the  divine  mission  of  the  Church  was  to 
grapple  with  the  ignorance  and  indifference  of  men — to  ele- 
vate them  above  the  world  in  which  they  lived,  and  perfect 
them  for  a  higher  and  a  purer  sphere — by  presenting  the  hght 
of  revealed  religion  and  developing  the  true  principles  of 
morality,  and  unfolding  the  glorious  promises  of  the  gospel  of 
Christ — that  with  that  view  she  ought  to  give  all  her  energies 
to  the  enlightening  the  ignorance  and  darkness  that  prevail — 
that  carefully  avoiding  the  unintelligible,  or  whatever  was  not 
calculated  to  instruct,  she  should  order  all  things  so  as  to 
realize  the  apostle's  maxim,  "  let  all  things  be  done  to  edifica- 
tion"— that  avoiding  every  thing  that  was  beyond  the  capaci- 
ties of  the  masses  of  mankind,  she  should  arrange  all  things 
in  the  worship  of  God,  so  as  to  be  most  adapted  for  the  in- 
struction of  the  ignorant,  and  for  the  edification  of  the  many, 
and  for  the  elevation  of  all,  thus  realizing  tlie  true  mission  of 
the  Church  of  Christ  as  the  great  toftcher  of  mankind. 

8 


170  EVENINGS    WITH   THE   ROMANISTS, 

All  this  was  at  once  assented  to.  I  therefore  went  on  to 
say,  that  it  was  on  this  principle  that  the  Church  of  England, 
and  all  the  Protestant  Churches,  acted  in  all  their  arrange- 
ments for  public  worship.  The  Holy  Scriptures  are  read  pub- 
licly for  the  divine  teaching  of  the  people.  Exhortations,  ex- 
positions, sermons  are  added  to  illustrate,  enforce  and  apply 
the  word  of  God.  The  Lord's  Supper,  which  represents  and 
teaches  how  the  Saviour  died  on  the  cross  for  the  salvation  of 
His  people — the  Baptism,  which  symbolizes  and  teaches  that 
as  water  cleanses  the  outward  body,  so  the  Holy  Spirit  must 
wash  and  cleanse  the  inner  and  outer  life  ahke  from  the  love 
and  practice  of  sin — these  sacramental  rites,  with  all  the 
praises  and  thanksgivings  and  intercessions  and  prayers,  are 
expressed  in  the  clearest  and  simplest  language,  in  the  com- 
mon language  of  the  people,  so  that  all  may  hear  and  under- 
stand, and  be  instructed  and  edified.  The  Protestant  Churches 
thus  realize  the  mission  of  the  Church  as  the  great  teacher  of 
mankind.  But  the  Church  of  Rome  presents  a  striking  con- 
trast to  all  this.  All  her  services  for  Baptism,  for  the  Lord's 
Supper,  for  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass,  and  all  her  sacramental 
rites,  are  conducted  in  the  Latin  language.  And  the  conse- 
quence is  that  in  her  public  worship  every  thing  is  above  and 
beyond  the  comprehension  of  the  masses  of  her  people,  and 
therefore  can  not  tend  to  their  enlightenment  or  edification. 

It  was  at  once  acknowledged  that  all  this  was  true ;  at 
least,  that  these  services  being  in  the  Latin  language,  were  un- 
intelligible to  the  people ;  but,  it  was  added,  that  although  the 
people  did  not  understand  the  words,  that  is,  the  prayers,  yet 
they  were  so  well  instructed  in  the  nature  of  these  services 
that  they  understood  them  in  all  that  was  necessary,  and 
could  piously  and  devoutly  join  in  them,  not  perhaps,  say- 
ing the  very  same  prayers,  but  still  saying  some  prayers  of 
their  own,  and  thus  joining  in  the  holy  mysteries  with  devo- 
tion and  profit. 

I  replied,  that  there  could  be  no  doubt  of  the  deep,  earnest, 
heartfelt  devotion  of  many  who  attended  these  services,  how- 
ever unintelligible.     I  had   lived   too  much   among  Roman 


THE  USE  OF  AN  UNKNOWN  LANGUAGE.        l7l 

Catholics  and  seen  too  much  of  their  system,  not  to  know  and 
feel  that  there  was  true-hearted  and  humble  devotion  among 
many.  But,  I  added,  that  this  was  different  from  the  system, 
and,  as  I  believed,  despite  of  the  system.  The  result — the 
natural  result  of  this  system  is,  that  as  the  congregation  can 
not  understand  the  Latin  liturgy,  they  supply  themselves  with 
other  and  totally  difterent  liturgies  in  their  own  language. 
One  has  "  The  Garden  of  the  Soul,"  and  another  "  The  Key 
to  Heaven ;"  some  employ  "  The  Path  to  Paradise,"  and 
others  "  The  Sacred  Heart."  Every  member  supplies  himself 
with  such  liturgical  or  devotional  book  as  may  suit  his  pecu 
liar  taste,  each  being  difterent  from  the  other,  and  all  agreeing 
only  in  being  totally  different  from  the  service  as  performed 
by  the  officiating  priest  at  the  altar ;  no  two  forms  of  j^rayer 
in  these  books  being  the  same,  and  all  being  different  from 
the  authorized  liturgy,  the  Latin  liturgy  made  use  of  by  the 
priest !  A  state  of  things  like  this  is  wholly  incapable  of  in- 
structing or  edifying  the  people.  They  hear  it,  but  they  do 
not  comprehend  it.  They  see  it,  but  they  do  not  understand 
it.  They  attend  it,  but  they  do  not  take  part  in  it.  And  the 
consequence  is,  that  being  utterly  unconscious  of  what  is  say- 
ing at  the  altar,  it  has  become  the  universal  practice  to  ring  a 
little  bell  to  o-ive  notice  to  the  confrreo'ation  Avhen  the  Host  is 
about  to  be  elevated,  and  they  are  to  prostrate  themselves  to 
adore  it !  They  seem  to  have  no  better  way  of  knowing  the 
moment — not  knowing  the  language  of  the  service — than  the 
ringing  of  a  little  bell ! 

I  have  always  found  this  method  of  reasoning  have  its' 
natural  influence  on  all  who  are  capable  of  being  influenced 
by  any  thing.  In  general,  Roman  Catholics  of  mind  and 
feeling  and  education  express  their  regret  that  such  a  system 
should  be  retained  in  their  Church.  My  present  companion  was 
frank  and  open  on  the  point,  adding,  however,  that  it  was  merely 
a  matter  of  discipline  and  not  a  matter  of  faith ;  and  that  the 
pope  could  at  any  time  command  a  change,  by  which  all  the 
services  should  be  celebrated  in  the  common  language  of 
every  country. 


172  EVENINGS    WIIH    THE    KOilANISTS. 

To  this"  the  reply  was  obvious,  and  I  could  not  hesitate  in 
making  it — namely,  that  this  apology  only  makes  the  matter 
worse  than  before  ;  for,  if  the  practice  were  one  of  necessity, 
one  that  was  unalterable,  there  would  be  no  need  of  further 
excuse  ;  but  when  it  is  admitted  that  there  is  no  such  neces- 
sity— that  it  is  in  the  power  of  the  pontiff  to  alter  it,  then  the 
objection  becomes  still  more  fatal  jigainst  a  system  so  vmrea- 
sonable  and  uuedifying  and  wrong  in  itself,  and  which  might 
be  so  easily  reformed  if  they  would. 

When  the  argument  was  in  this  position  I  urged  that  the 
pope  has  no  right  to  enforce  a  practice,  not  only  objectionable 
and  unedifying  in  itself,  but  directly  contrary  to  the  plain 
language  of  Holy  Scripture.  And  then  opening  the  volume, 
I  commenced  by  reading  the  second  chapter  of  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles,  from  the  first  to  the  eleventh  verses — "  And 
when  the  day  of  Pentecost  was  fully  come,  they  were  all  with 
one  accord  in  one  place.  And  suddenly  there  came  a  sound 
from  heaven  as  of  a  rushing  mighty  wind,  and  it  filled  all  the 
house  where  they  were  sitting.  And  there  appeared  unto 
them  cloven  tongues  like  as  of  fire,  and  it  sat  upon  each  of 
them.  And  they  were  all  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 
began  to  speak  with  other  tongues,  as  the  Spirit  gave  them 
utterance.  And  there  were  dwelling  at  Jerusalem  Jews, 
devout  men,  out  of  every  nation  under  heaven.  Now  when 
this  was  noised  abroad  the  multitude  came  together,  and 
were  confounded,  because  that  every  man  heard  them  speak 
in  his  own  language.  And  they  were  all  amazed  and  mar- 
veled, saying  one  to  another.  Behold,  are  not  all  those  which 
speak  Galileans  ?  And  how  hear  we  every  man  in  our  own 
tono-ue  wherein  we  were  born  ?  Parthians,  and  Medes,  and 
Elamites,  and  the  dwellers  in  Mesopotamia,  and  in  Judaea,  and 
Cappadocia,  in  Pontus,  and  Asia,  Phrygia,  and  Pamphyha,  in 
Egjqit,  and  in  the  parts  of  Libya  about  Gyrene,  and  strangers 
of  Rome,  Jews  and  proselytes,  Cretes  and  Arabians,  do  we 
hear  them  speak  in  our  tongues  the  wonderful  works  of 
God."  The  argument  on  this  is,  that  it  details  that  wonderful 
event  by  which  the  foundations  of  the  Christian  Church  were 


THE    USE    OF    AN    UNKNOWN    LANGUAGE.  1Y3 

laid — tlie  gift  of  tongues.  Our  Lord,  had  commanded  His 
apostles  to  go  forth  and  preach  the  Gospel  to  every  nation, 
teaching  them  and  baptizing  them.  And  now,  to  enable 
them  to  do  this,  the  Holy  Spirit  shed  on  them  this  miraculous 
gift  of  being  able  to  understand  and  speak  all  the  languages 
of  the  nations  among  whom  they  were  to  preach,  and  teach, 
and  baptize.  The  wonderful  character  of  this  miracle  was 
immediately  perceptible.  And  "  every  man  heard  them  speak 
in  their  own  language,  and  they  were  all  amazed  and  marveled, 
saying — How  hear  we  every  man  in  our  own  tongue  wherein 
we  were  born  ? — we  do  hear  them  speak  in  our  own  tongues 
the  wonderful  works  of  God."  Here  was  the  fundamental 
miracle  of  the  Christian  Church,  and  for  any  particular  or 
national  Church,  as  that  of  Rome,  to  prohibit  the  use  of  a 
known  tongue  in  the  services  of  public  worship — to  compel 
the  service  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  which  preaches  "  the  wonder- 
ful work"  of  the  dying  Saviour — to  compel  the  administration 
of  Baptism,  which  teaches  "  the  wonderful  work"  of  the  Holy 
Spirit — to  compel  these  to  be  celebrated  in  the  Latin  language 
instead  of  the  common  language  of  the  people,  is  an  act  in 
direct  contradiction  of  this  fundamental  miracle  of  the  Christian 
Church.  It  was  plainly  intended  that  every  country  should 
enjoy  the  ministrations  of  Christ's  Church  in  the  language  of 
the  country,  and  not  in  a  dead,  unknown  tongue,  which  is 
not  spoken  in  any  one  country  on  the  face  of  God's  wide  crea- 
tion. But,  instead  of  this,  and  against  this,  which  clearly 
implies,  not  a  uniformity  but  a  diversity  of  languages,  the 
Church  of  Rome  requires,  that  whether  in  Italy  or  in  Spain, 
whether  in  France  or  in  Ireland,  whether  among  the  Hotten- 
tots of  Africa,  among  the  Chinese  of  Asia,  or  the  Red  Indians 
of  America,  the  great  services — all  the  sacramental  services  of 
the  Church  shall  be  administered  in  tlie  Latin  language,  so 
that  none  can  understand,  none  can  be  edified,  and  all  the 
services  seem  a  mysterious  charm  and  unintelligible  incanta- 
tion. If  it  had  bo  m  the  will  of  God  that  all  the  services  of 
His  Church  were  to  be  in  Latin,  He  could  have  given  the 


174  EVENINGS    WITH   THE    ROMANISTS. 

single  gift  of  the  Latin  tongue.     That  alone  had  sufficed  and 
there  was  no  need  of  the  gifts  of  other  tongues. 

I  hat  3  never  known  any  serious  attempt  to  answer  this 
argument  from  the  gift  of  tongues.  I  have,  indeed,  known 
various  efforts  to  excuse  the  Latin  service,  but  I  have  never 
known  any  attempt  worth  the  name  of  an  answer  to  this 
argument  itself.  There  was  no  attempt  on  the  present  occa- 
sion, I,  therefore,  opened  the  fourteenth  chapter  of  1  Cor.  and 
read — "  Now,  brethren,  if  I  come  unto  you  speaking  with 
tongues,  what  shall  I  profit  you,  except  I  shall  speak  to  you 
either  by  revelation,  or  by  knowledge,  or  by  prophesying  or 
by  doctrine  ?  And  even  things  without  life  giving  sound, 
whether  pipe  or  harp,  except  they  give  a  distinction  in  the 
sounds,  how  shall  it  be  known  what  is  piped  or  harped  ?  For 
if  the  trumpet  give  an  uncertain  sound,  who  shall  prepare 
himself  to  the  battle  1  So  likewise  ye,  except  ye  utter  by  the 
tongue  words  easy  to  be  understood,  how  shall  it  be  known 
what  is  spoken  ?  for  ye  shall  speak  into  the  air.  There  are,  it 
may  be,  so  many  kinds  of  voices  in  the  world,  and  none  of 
them  is  without  signification.  Therefore  if  I  know  not  the 
meaning  of  the  voice,  I  shall  be  unto  him  that  speaketh  a  bar- 
barian, and  he  that  speaketh  shall  be  a  barbarian  unto  me." 
On  this  I  remarked  that  the  Apostle  is  alluding  to  the  im- 
proper exercise  of  the  gift  of  tongues,  and  reproving  those 
who  in  the  church  used  an  unknown  tongue.  He  argues 
from  musical  instruments,  which  must  be  intelligently  played, 
in  order  to  yield  real  harmony.  He  argues  from  the  trumpet 
guiding  armies  in  the  battle-field,  that  if  the  sound  be  not 
understood  it  could  not  be  obeyed  ;  and  so  if  the  trumpet  of 
the  gospel  be  not  intelligible,  it  can  not  be  profitable  in  lead- 
ing to  the  warfare  against  sin.  And  finally  he  states  that  so 
long  as  the  minister  of  the  church  employs  an  unknown  lan- 
guage, the  ministers  and  the  people  will  be  no  better  than 
barbarians,  that  is,  non-intelligent  and  unintelligible  to  each 
other. 

To  this  it  was  objected  that  all  this  referred  to  the  preach- 
ing of  the  Gospel  to  the  people — that  with  that  view  the  gift 


THE    USE    OF    AN    UNKNOWN    LANGUAGE.  175 

of  speaking  in  unknown  tongues  was  given,  and,  accordingly, 
in  the  Churcli  of  Rome,  they  always  and  evei'ywhere  preached 
in  the  common  language  of  the  people — that  all  this  Scripture 
referred  to  preaching  and  to  praying,  not  to  religious  services. 
To  this  I  at  once  answered  that  the  argument  of  the  apos- 
tles goes  further  than  this,  applying  it  to  prayer  and  praise,  as 
well  as  to  preaching  and  teaching ;  he  says,  "  For  if  I  pray  in 
an  unknown  tongue,  my  spirit  prayeth,  but  my  understand- 
ing is  unfruitful.  What  is  it  then  ?  I  will  pray  with  the 
spirit,  and  I  will  pray  with  the  understanding  also ;  I  will 
sing  with  the  spirit,  and  I  will  sing  with  the  understanding 
also.  Else  when  thou  shalt  bless  with  the  spirit,  how  shall 
he  that  occupieth  the  room  of  the  unlearned  say  Amen  at  thy 
giving  of  thanks,  seeing  he  uuderstandeth  not  what  thou  say- 
est  ?  For  thou  verily  givest  thanks  well,  but  the  other  is  not 
edified."  Here  he  applies  the  argument  to  prayer  and  praise, 
which  constitute  the  main  elements  of  public  worship,  and 
while  he  urges  that  the  language  should  be  understood,  he 
asks  in  a  tone  that  shows  he  felt  his  question  was  unanswer- 
able. "  When  thou  shalt  bless  with  the  spirit,  how  shall  he 
that  occupieth  the  room  of  the  unlearned  say  Amen  at  thy 
giving  of  thanks,  seeing  that  he  uuderstandeth  not  what  thou 
sayest  ?"  The  apostle  seems  never  to  have  thought  of  the  in- 
vention of  a  little  bell  to  be  rung,  that  the  unlearned  might 
know,  when  they  were  to  say  this  Amen  to  a  prayer  or  thanks- 
giving, which  they  did  not  understand!  My  companion 
smiled  at  this,  shook  his  head  and  said  it  was  true — too  true. 
I  then  continued,  saying  that  the  apostle  goes  yet  further  than 
this,  in  his  argument  against  the  system  ;  for  he  says,  "  I  thank 
my  God,  I  speak  with  tongues  more  than  ye  all :  Yet  in  the 
church  I  had  rather  speak  five  words  with  my  understanding, 
that  by  my  voice  I  might  teach  others  also,  than  ten  thousand 
words  in  an  unknown  tongue.  Brethren,  be  not  children  in 
understanding :  howbeit  in  malice  be  ye  children,  but  in  un- 
derstanding be  men.  In  the  law  it  is  written.  With  men  of 
other  tongues  and  other  lips  will  I  speak  unto  this  people ; 
and  yet  for  all  that  will  they  not  hear  me,  saith  the  Lord. 


176  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

Wherefore  tongues  are  for  a  sign,  not  to  them  that  believe, 
but  to  them  that  believe  not ;  but  prophesying  serveth  not  for 
them  that  believe  not,  but  for  them  which  believe.  If  there- 
fore the  whole  church  be  come  together  into  one  place,  and 
all  speak  with  tongues,  and  there  shall  come  in  those  that  are 
unlearned,  or  unbelievers,  will  they  not  say  ye  are  mad  ?  But 
if  all  prophesy,  and  there  come  in  one  that  believeth  not,  or 
one  that  is  unlearned,  he  is  convinced  of  all,  he  is  judged  of 
all :  and  thus  are  the  secrets  of  his  heart  made  manifest ;  and 
so  falling  down  upon  his  face  he  will  worship  God,  and  report 
that  God  is  in  you  of  a  truth."  In  all  this  he  states,  that  with 
aU  his  knowledge  of  languages,  he  preferred  to  say  five  words 
in  an  intellifvible  lano-uao-e  than  a  thousand  which  were  un- 
known,  or  not  understood.  And  if,  as  so  many  Romanists 
imagine,  that  the  five  words  alluded  to  are  hoc  enim  est  corpus 
meum — "for  this  is  my  body" — the  five  mystic  words  by 
which  the  transubstantiation  is  effected  in  the  mass,  it  will 
prove  that  the  Canon  of  the  mass  should  especially  be  read  in 
a  language  known  and  understood  by  the  people.  Indeed  the 
apostle  adds,  verse  20,  that  it  seemed  a  very  childish  thing, 
and  inconsistent  with  the  understanding  of  thinking  men,  that 
this  practice  should  be  permitted  :  and  he  implies,  verse  21, 
that  such  a  practice  was  a  curse  and  not  a  blessin<r.  And  he 
finally  contrasts  the  two  systems  in  their  natural  effects.  In 
a  service  in  an  unknown  tongue  an  unlearned  man  hears  noth- 
ing but  unintelligible  sounds,  and  may  well  say  that  they  are 
mad ;  while  in  a  service  in  the  known  language  of  the  people, 
he  enters,  hears,  and  understands,  and  the  message  of  the  gos- 
pel convinces  him  of  his  sins,  and  leads  him  to  prayer  and  the 
worship  of  God.  The  argument  of  the  apostle  is  thus  plain 
and  cogent  throughout.  It  is  utterly  inconsistent  with  the 
pi-actice  of  the  Church  of  Rome  in  her  Latin  services ;  and 
however  ingenious  men  may  invent  ingenious  apologies  and 
excuses  for  her  practice,  it  must  be  admitted  that  her  practice 
is  directly  opposed  to  the  divine  authority. 

Among  intelligent  and   candid  Roman  Catholics,   I  have 
never  known  an  attempt  to  get  rid  of  this  argument  of  the 


THE    U&E    OF   AN    UNKNOWN    LANGUAGE.  177 

apostle  :  I  have  often  pressed  it,  and  often  with  the  same 
effect.  They  feel  it  fully,  and  can  not  answer  it.  But  instead 
of  yielding  to  it,  instead  of  bowing  humbly  and  obediently  to 
the  Divine  authority,  they  struggle  against,  and  they  endeavor 
to  show  that,  notwithstanding  the  judgment  of  the  apostle,  there 
are  some  advantages  in  the  Latin  services.  This,  as  might  be 
expected,  was  the  course  pursued  by  my  companion  on  the 
present  occasion.  He  said  that  the  universal  use  of  Latin 
tends  to  unity  or  uniformity  of  worship,  so  as  that,  let  a 
Roman  Catholic  travel  where  he  may,  he  will  be  sure  to  find 
precisely  the  same  form  of  worship,  the  same  prayers,  and  in 
the  same  language — that  by  having  the  mass,  and  all  the  sac- 
ramental services  always  in  the  Latin  language  ;  whether  in 
China  or  Peru,  whether  in  Canada  or  Algeria,  whether  in 
Spain  or  England,  whether  among  the  Indians  of  America  or 
the  peasantry  of  Ireland,  the  traveler  will  always  find  the  serv- 
ices the  same.  Wherever  the  stranger  wanders,  wherever 
the  emigrant  settles,  he  hears  the  same  well-known  words,  he 
hears  the  Catholic  Church  speaking  to  him  in  the  same  words ; 
words  unintelligible  perhaps,  but  still  pleasant,  because  still  the 
same  ;  he  had  heard  them  and  loved  them  in  his  own  land — 
always  in  the  Latin  language,  always  the  same. 

He  spoke  with  vivacity.  His  thoughts  were  with  some  of 
his  family,  who  had  emigrated  and  were  far  away.  He  had 
traveled  much,  and  seen  much  as  a  soldier  in  his  youth.  He 
was  now  contemplating  emigration  to  join  those  who  had  gone 
before,  to  prepare  the  way.  All  this  gave  point  and  feeling  to 
his  words. 

I  said  in  reply,  that  \vhatever  conveniences  might  be  sup- 
posed to  be  connected  with  the  practice,  they  could  not  excuse 
and  certainly  could  not  justify,  a  practice  so  plainly  contrary 
to  the  clear  language  of  Holy  Scripture.  And  certainly  a 
problematical  convenience  to  a  solitary  traveler  or  a  lonely 
emigrant  was  an  insufficient  justification.  Travelers  and  emi- 
grants will  always  be  very  few  compared  with  the  multitude. 
And,  according  to  this  argument,  the  vast  multitude  is  incon- 
venienced for  the  sake  of  the  few — the  whole  population  is  to 


178  EVENINGS   WITH   THE   ROMANISTS. 

be  inconvenienced  by  having  worsliip  celebrated  in  an  un- 
known language  which  no  one  understands,  and  all  for  the 
convenience  of  a  few  traveiers  or  emigrants  !  Such  an  argu- 
ment implies  that  for  the  convenience  of  a  few  Spanish  travel- 
ers or  settlers  in  England,  the  whole  population  of  England  is 
to  be  inconveniei  .ied  by  having  their  religious  services  in  a 
language  unintelligible  to  them — that  for  the  convenience  of  a 
few  Italian  travelers  or  emigrants  in  Germany,  the  whole  popu- 
lation of  Germany  must  endure  the  inconvenience  of  their 
public  worship  being  in  a  language  they  can  not  understand — 
that  for  the  convenience  of  some  Irish  travelers  or  emigrants  to 
Amenca,  the  whole  people  of  America  must  be  subjected  to  the 
inconvenience  of  the  Latin  liturgy.  This  indeed,  would  be  sac- 
rificing the  interests  of  the  many  to  the  convenience  of  the  few 
— sacrificing  a  whole  population  to  the  wishes  of  a  few  travelers 
or  emigrants.  And,  after  all,  I  added,  it  could  be  no  real  or 
substantial  advantage  even  to  them.  For,  if  a  Spaniard,  trav- 
eling or  settling  in  England,  could  not  understand  a  service 
in  English,  neither  could  he  understand  it  in  Latin.  And  al- 
though an  Italian  traveler  or  settler  in  Germany  might  not 
comprehend  a  service  in  German,  yet  he  would  be  in  the  very 
same  difiiculty  as  not  understanding  a  service  in  Latin.  And 
as  to  an  Irish  traveler  or  emigrant  in  America,  whether  he 
could  or  could  not  understand  an  Euglish  service,  he  certainly 
would  not  find  it  more  intelligible  by  finding  it  in  Latin.  And 
thus  this  convenience  of  a  Latin  service  amounts  simply  to 
this — that  wherever  the  traveler  wanders,  or  the  emigrant 
settles,  he  must  find  the  services  of  his  Church  in  a  language 
which  he  does  not  understand  ! 

This  mode  of  meeting  his  argument  did  not  seem  to  be 
palatable  ;  perhaps  it  touched  too  closely  his  personal  feelings 
respecting  emigrants  ;  he  certainly  took  no  notice  of  it,  but 
immediately  suggested  another  argument,  one  of  very  frequent 
use  among  the  members  of  the  Church  of  Rome. 

He  argued,  that  it  had  been  the  universal  practice  of  the 
church — that  in  all  ages,  and  in  all  places  the  liturgies  were  in 
the  Latin  tongue — that  Latin  was  the  language  of  the  chuich, 


THE    USE    OF    AN    UNKNOWN    LANGUAGE.  179 

and  that  it  was  a  part  of  the  communion  of  saints  that  the 
church  in  the  present  age  should  be  found  speaking  to  her 
children  in  the  very  same  accents  she  had  used  in  former  ages, 
and  that  it  belonged  to  the  perpetuity  and  unchangeableness 
of  the  church  to  continue  forever  her  services  in  the  same 
language.  And  yet  further,  it  was  argued,  that  this  use  of  the 
Latin  tongue  thus  became  an  argument  in  favor  of  the  Church 
of  Rome  ;  as  being  a  sign  that  she  is  still  the  same  she  ever 
was — the  Holy  Catholic  Church. 

I  answered  this,  by  saying  that  it  was  utterly  erroneous — 
altogether  wrong  and  untrue,  to  say  that  this  was  at  all  times 
and  all  places  the  universal  practice  of  the  church.     The 
Church  of  Jesus  Christ  commenced  in  Jerusalem  ;  and  all  the 
gospels  and  epistles  were  written  in  Greek,  and  it  was  there- 
fore probable  that  those,  who  like  the  apostles,  usually  wrote 
in  Greek,  spoke  and  prayed,  and  preached  also  in  Greek.     In- 
deed it  is  very  certain,  that  all  the  earliest  or  primitive  churches 
had  their  services  in  Greek  ;  for  all  the  most  ancient  liturgies, 
which  have  come  down  to  us,  have  been  in  the  Greek  lan- 
guage.    And  to  this  day  the  Greek  Church,  the  Armenian 
Church,  the  Coptic  Christians,  the  Nestorian  Christians,  the 
Syrian  Christians,  and  all  the  Eastern  Churches,  have  their 
liturgies  in  the  languages  of  the  East  and  not  one^f  them  use 
the  Latin.     [I  could  affirm  this  in  some  respect  on  personal 
knowledge,  for  I  have  heard  the  communion-servaces  or  litur- 
gies of  these  Eastern  Churches  in  five  difierent  forms  and  lan- 
guages by  the  priests  of  so  many  different  churches.     A  word 
of  Latin  was  not  used  by  any  of  them.]     It  is  very  true,  I 
added,  that  in  the  Western  or  Latin  Churches,  inasmuch  as  the 
language  of  Western  Europe  was  more  Latin  than  any  other, 
so  the  Latin  was  more  generally  used  in  their  sacred  services. 
It  was  the  language  then  best  understood,  and  therefore  it  was 
the  language  best  to  be  used.     It  was  the  language  of  Rome 
and  Italy  and  other  countries,  and  was  therefore  the  fittest 
language  for  the  liturgies  of  those  countries.     But  so  far  was 
this  from  being  uniform,  that  we  know  of  Spain,  France,  and 
England  having  difierent  liturgies,  and  some  even  in  difierent 


180  EVENINGS    WITH   THE    ROMANISTS. 

laugiiages.  Even  in  Italy  herself,  her  liturgies  were  not  uni- 
formly the  same,  and  the  fact  is  certain,  that  even  there,  in 
those  parts  of  Italy  that  were  colonized  from  Greece,  the  serv- 
ices were  in  the  Greek  language.  In  process  of  time — in 
process  of  some  centuries,  all  those  differences  were  gradually 
suppressed,  and  the  Church  of  Eome  was  enabled  to  impose 
her  Latin  liturgy  upon  all,  even  after  the  Latin  ceased  to  be  a 
spoken  language.  For  some  centuries  the  Latin  language  has 
disappeared  from  Europe,  but  the  Church  of  Rome  retains  the 
old  and  exploded  tongue  ;  and  this  is  the  real  cause  of  the 
mass  and  other  services  being  still  in  Latin — a  language  not 
understood  by  the  peopje  of  any  country  in  the  world.  The 
few  learned  may  know  it.  The  masses  of  the  people  do  not 
understand  one  word  of  it. 

My  friend  demurred  to  this.  He  did  not,  and  he  said 
with  great  courtesy,  that  he  would  not  of  course  set  his  word 
against  mine,  but  that  he  had  read,  that  Latin  was  always  the 
language  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  But,  he  added,  that  the 
people  found  no  inconvenience  in  it,  because  they  had  transla- 
tions, and  a  great  variety  of  pious  books,  by  means  of  which 
they  could  follow  the  priest,  and  understand  the  service ;  and 
he  appealed  to  my  own  knowledge  of  the  fact,  as  having  often 
seen  the  members  of  the  Roman  Catholic  conofreafations  with 
their  books,  as  devoutly  reading  during  service,  as  the  mem- 
bers of  Protestant  congregations. 

My  reply  to  this,  was,  that  I  certainly  had  seen  many  Roman 
Catholics  readino-  their  books  in  their  churches,  but  not  read- 
ing  the  service  or  liturgy  of  their  Church — not  following  or 
reading  with  the  .officiating  priest,  either  the  original,  or  a 
translation.  I  reminded  him,  of  there  being  no  book  of  Com- 
mon Prayer  among  them,  there  being  no  book  of  Common 
Prayer  authorized  by  the  Church  of  Rome — no  authorized 
liturgy  for  the  laity — and  no  authorized  translation  of  the  serv- 
ice of  the  mass,  in  any  language.  Each  member  selects  any 
volume  of  devotions,  or  any  compilations  of  prayers,  that  may 
be  most  suitable  to  his  taste.  There  are  of  course  great  vari- 
eties of  these,  none  of  them  beinnr  authorized  by  the  Church 


THE    USE    OF    AN    UNKNOWN    LANGUAGE.  181 

of  Eome,  and  each  member  selecting  such  private  compilation 
of  private  prayers,  takes  it  to  his  place  of  -worship,  and  occu- 
pies himself  in  these  prayers,  -while  the  priest  at  the  altar  is 
reciting  a  form  of  prayers  of  a  totally  different  character,  [f 
have  nyself  observed  at  Rome,  cardinals,  bishops,  priests, 
monks,  laymen,  and  -women.  I  have  myself  looked  into 
their  books  at  such  devotions,  and  have  sometimes  read  with 
them  out  of  the  same  book  of  prayers.  I  have  seen  one  read- 
ing a  psalm,  another  reading  a  prayer,  some  reading  a  litany, 
others  reading  a  legend  in  the  breviary,  all  devout  and  intent 
in  their  isolated  way,  but  all  reading  what  was  not  only  dif- 
ferent from  each  other,  but  altogether  different  from  the  priest 
officiating  at  the  altar  !  They  have  no  idea  of  the  unity  of 
worship,  of  the  communion  of  prayer  as  it  exists  among  us. 
It  is  among  them  just  as  it  would  be  among  us,  if,  while  the 
minister  was  reading  the  litany,  one  portion  of  the  congrega- 
tion was  reading  the  communion-service,  and  another  por- 
tion Avas  reading  the  morning  prayer,  and  others  poring  over 
the  forms  for  marriage  or  for  baptism  ;  or  as  if,  while  the 
minister  was  reading  a  chapter  from  the  gospels,  some  of  the 
congregation  were  reading  the  prophets,  and  others  studying 
the  epistles,  or  perhaps  some  reading  Nelson's  "  Fasts  and 
Festivals,"  while  others  w^ere  perusing  Doddridge's  "  Rise  and 
Progress."  This  is  the  practice  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  a 
practice  so  general  as  that  it  may  be  called  universal.]  There 
is,  perhaps,  scarcely  one  individual  in  the  whole  congregation 
who  reads  the  translation  of  the  services,  so  as  to  enable  him 
to  understand  the  service  and  follow  the  priest  who  officiates. 
But  many  a  one  thinks  he  does  so,  for  in  many  of  their  devo- 
tional books  there  are  prayers  entitled  "  prayers  that  may  be 
said  during  the  mass,"  and  in  their  simplicity,  they  imagine 
these  to  be  translations  of  the  service  of  the  mass.  They  are 
totally  different — different  in  their  form,  and  no  less  different 
in  their  object.  The  v^ry  title  of  those  prayers  implies  this 
difference,  and  therefore  it  is  a  simple  fiction  to  assert  that 
there  is  no  inconvenience  in  the  Latin  services  on  the  ground 


182  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

that  they  have  translations  in  their  prayer-books,  to  enable 
them  to  follow  and  anderstand. 

Having  appealed  to  the  experience  and  knowledge  of  my 
companion  on  this  point,  he  at  once  frankly  acknowledged  it. 
He  said,  they  generally  used  a  variety  of  prayer-books,  but 
that  in  most  of  them,  there  was  at  the  end  a  translation  of  the 
mass-service,  which  they  could  read  if  they  wished,  but  that  it 
was  not  their  custom,  as  every  one  prayed  for  himself,  and 
sometimes  liked  his  own  prayer-book  better  than  the  transla- 
tion. He  then  added,  that  he  had  lately  read  another  reason 
for  the  Latin  tongue. 

It  was  to  the  effect  that  it  presented  a  graceful  and  beauti- 
ful conception — unity  of  language  in  worship.  The  Church 
was  to  be  a  universal  brotherhood  or  society,  extending 
through  the  whole  world — comprehending  men  of  every 
color,  and  of  every  clime,  and  of  every  tongue — and  that  the 
Church  of  Rome  presented  the  glorious  spectacle  of  such  a 
brotherhood  or  society,  speaking  to  all  these  in  one  and  the 
same  language,  and  habituating  all  these  to  a  worship  in 
which  they  all  used  only  one  common  language.  However 
separated  in  color  or  climate,  by  distance  or  by  customs,  in 
nature  or  in  language,  yet  here  in  the  highest  of  all  acts  of 
worship  they  were  united,  for  every  where  there  was  only  the 
one  language.  It  was  an  anticipation  of  heaven,  where  all 
would  yet  speak  but  one  language. 

I  replied  that  all  this  was  only  a  fanciful  idea,  that  might 
seem  grand  and  beautiful  to  some,  for  there  was  no  account- 
ing for  tastes,  but  was  neither  practical  nor  profitable.  That 
the  God  of  the  universe  permitted  for  wise  purposes  of  his 
own,  a  diversity  of  languages  among  the  nations  in  speaking 
of  Him  and  of  His  works,  and  He  certainly  has  given  no 
reason  to  suppose  that  he  has  departed  from  this  in  the  relig- 
ious worship  of  his  people.  And  as  to  a  unity  of  language,  it 
leads  to  a  unity  of  unintelligibility,  for  as  the  Latin  tongue  is  not 
the  native  tongue  of  any  one  people  in  the  world,  so  the  unity — 
the  real  unity  which  is  obtained  by  it,  is  the  fact  that  no  peo- 
ple in  the  world  shall  understand  it — a  unity  of  being  unintel- 


THE  USE  OF  AN  UNKNOWN  LANGUAGE.        183 

Hgible  !  And  this  brotherhood  or  society  is  presented  a  spec- 
tacle before  men  and  angels,  as  one,  which  for  the  sake  of 
unity  of  language,  has  adopted  a  system  which  establishes 
them  in  a  unity  of  non-intelligent  worshipers! 

I  added  that  there  was  a  far  nobler  and  magnificent  spec- 
tacle in  looking  upon  the  church  as  extending  herself  through 
every  tongue,  and  nation,  and  people,  and  contemplating  the 
children  of  the  Saviour — the  men  of  every  hue  and  eveiy  land 
— those  who  look  upon  the  mighty  icebergs  of  the  frozen 
north,  those  who  breathe  the  perfumes  of  the  sunny  south,  those 
who  wander  beside  the  ancient  Euphrates,  or  dwell  along  the 
banks  of  the  aged  Nile,  or  hunt  among  the  prairies  of  the 
gigantic  Mississippi,  the  children  of  the  oak,  or  the  children 
of  the  palm-tree — contemplating  all  these,  lifting  up  holy 
hands  and  grateful  hearts  and  prayerful  spirits,  and  believing 
minds,  and  trustful  natures  to  Him,  who  has  loved  them,  and 
given  himself  for  them.  And  doing  all  this  with  unity  of 
heart  and  soul,  each  in  his  own  tongue,  and  in  his  own  way, 
and  in  his  own  land,  and  among  his  own  friends ;  in  all  the 
diversity  of  language,  and  color  of  face,  as  well  as  of  climate 
and  of  country.  This  seems  to  me  a  far  more  beautiful  and 
nobler  spectacle,  and  is  a  more  holy,  touching  and  acceptable 
sight  in  the  eyes  of  Him  with  whom  we  have  to  do,  than  a 
mere  unity  of  language,  especially  of  a  language  which  is  not 
understood  in  any  nation  of  the  world — a  unity  of  non-intelli- 
gent worshipers ! 

He  shook  his  head  at  this,  as  if  unwilling  to  receive  it,  but 
he  offered  nothing  in  reply.  He  was  silent.  With  a  few 
words  on  the  necessity  of  religion  being  spiritual  rather  than 
ceremonial,  and  internal  rather  than  external — as  wrought  in  zis 
and  practiced  by  us,  rather  than  an  affair  transacted  by  some 
priesthood /or  us,  we  parted. 

It  is  very  seldom  that  the  members  of  the  Church  of  Rome 
advance  any  further  apology  for  this  practice.  In  these  coun- 
tries, however,  as  Ireland  and  Italy,  where  they  are  in  the 
deepest  darkness,  and  where  they  regard  religion  as  a  matter 
which  belongs  not  to  the  laity,  but  to  the  clergy,  and  which  is 


184  EVENINGS  vrrrH  the  komanists. 

to  be  managed  by  the  latter,  for  and  in  behalf  of  the  former — 
a  matter  in  which  every  thing  that  is  essential  is  done  for 
them  and  not  hy  them — a  matter  which  is  of  external  cere- 
monial rather  than  internal  operation — they  sometimes  argue 
that  as  the  mass  is  a  sacrifice,  not  done  by  them,  hxii  for  them, 
so  there  can  be  no  necessity  for  their  understanding  it.  And 
they  endeavor  to  justify  this  by  alluding  to  the  fact  mentioned 
in  the  gospel  narrative,  where  Zechariah  is  described  as  enter- 
ing the  temple  to  burn  incense,  where  all  the  people  were 
waiting  without,  neither  understanding  nor  seeing  what  he  did. 
The  answer  to  this  reference  to  the  Gospel  narrative  is  that 
the  burning  incense  in  the  holy  place  was  a  service  appertain- 
ing to  the  priest  alone.  Those  priests  were  typical  persons, 
and  their  incense  was  a  typical  rite  ;  and  had  no  reference 
whatever  to  the  people  who  waited  without.  They  had  no 
j^art  in  it,  and  had  nothing  to  do  v>ith  it.  Those  priests  burn- 
ing incense  within  the  holy  place  were  the  types  of  those 
Christian  persons — those  faithful  ones  whom  an  apostle  calls 
"  a  holy  priesthood."  They  were  the  types  of  all  true  believ- 
ers, who  live  in  a  spirit  of  prayer,  presenting  their  prayers  for- 
ever in  "  the  holy  place  "  of  the  Church  of  Christ.  But  this 
had  no  reference  to  the  people  who  were  waiting  without. 
They  never  saw  it.  They  never  had  part  in  it,  and  as  these 
were  not  their  prayers  nor  words,  so  there  was  nothing  for 
them  to  know  or  understand.  Indeed,  if  the  text  proves  any 
thing,  it  proves  too  much,  for  it  would  prove  that  if  the  mass 
be  any  thing  of  this  nature,  there  is  no  necessity  or  use  in  the 
people  seeing  it,  hearing  it,  attending  or  being  present  at  it. 
They  may  as  well  stay  witiiout,  and  never  approach  it  at  all ! 
And  as  for  the  argument  that  the  mass  is  a  sacrifice,  it  is  at 
once  met  by  the  simple  denial  of  such  a  doctrine  ;  but  even  if 
it  were  all  they  asseit,  it  could  not  justify  the  practice  of  the 
Church  of  Rome,  for  in  a  sacrifice,  according  to  the  Levitical 
law,  the  person  who  offered  it  had  part  in  the  act,  as  large  a 
part  as  the  priest ;  for  he  v^as  to  bring  the  victim  to  the  door 
of  the  tabernacle  v.here  the  altar  was,  he  was  to  present  the 
victim  as  his  eul^stitutiO,  thereby  showing;  his  belief  in  "  the 


THE    USE    OF    AN    UNKNOWN    LANGUAGB.  185 

Lamb  of  God,"  by  whom,  as  his  substitute,  all  his  sins  were 
atoned  for  ;  he  was  to  lay  his  hands  upon  its  head,  so  as  to 
identify  himself  universally  with  it,  and  acknowledge  his  sins 
over  it,  as  acknowledo-ino^  h:s  sins  to  his  Saviour,  and  there  he 
was  to  slay  the  victim,  showing  his  feith  in  the  truth,  that  his 
salvation  is  only  in  the  death  of  Him  who  died,  "  the  just  for 
the  unjust,  that  he  might  bring  us  to  God."  It  was  then  that 
the  priest,  after  having  accepted  it  as  his  substitute,  was  to 
collect  the  blood  and  sprinkle  it  as  directed  by  the  law,  showing 
that  all  our  salvation  is  from  the  sprinkling  of  blood  of  "  the 
Lamb  of  God."  In  all  this,  the  persons  who  offered  the  sacri- 
fice had  more  to  do,  and  had  a  larger  share  in  the  ceremony, 
than  the  priest  himself.  And  besides  this,  there  was  no  form 
of  words,  there  were  no  form  of  prayers,  there  were  no  forms 
of  thanksgiving,  there  was  nothing  of  the  kind,  so  that  no  par- 
allel can  be  drawn  from  these  in  favor  of  Latin  services  con- 
nected with  the  mass,  to  which  the  services  presented  no  par- 
allel whatever. 

This  argument,  however,  is  now  seldom  urged  except 
among  those  who  regard  religion  as  a  matter  belonging  to  the 
clergy  and  not  to  the  people.  In  an  age  of  light  and  of 
knowledge  like  the  present,  and  in  a  country  like  this,  in 
which  every  man  feels  he  must  understand  all  he  is  required 
to  do,  and  in  which  it  is  universally  felt  that  all  worship  of 
God  on  the  part  of  intelligent  creatures  ought  to  be  an  intelli- 
gent worship,  according  to  our  Lord's  words,  "  God  is  a  Spirit, 
and  they  that  worship  him  must  worship  him  in  spirit  and  in 
truth,"  it  would  never  do  to  argue  that  there  is  no  need  for  the 
people  to  understand  the  prayers  that  constitute  their  worship. 
It  would  be  arguing  a  foregone  conclusion  to  discuss  it. 

I  have  generally  found  that  in  conversation,  our  opponents 
are  perplexed  and  embarrassed  by  this  practice  of  using  the 
Latin  language.  This  perplexity  and  embarrassment  are  in- 
creased where  the  members  of  the  Church  of  Rome — and  they 
are  many — have  felt  and  have  reprobated  the  mischief  of  the 
practice,  its  unedifying  nature,  and  the  scandal  it  has  caused, 
by  giving  us  so  strong  a  ground  of  exception  against  them. 


186  EVENINGS    WITH   THE    ROMANISTS. 

It  is  a  subject  of  constant  regret  among  themselves.  And  in 
countries  like  these,  where  there  is  so  much  reflex  light  from 
intelligent  Protestantism,  penetrating  even  the  dimness  of 
Romanism,  some  of  the  bishops  have  felt  themselves  obliged  to 
yield,  and  have  allowed  the  Epistles  and  Gospels  sometimes  to 
be  read  in  English,  thus  gi^^ng  a  small — a  very  small  install- 
ment of  their  demands.  And  as  this  did  not  altogether  sat- 
isfy, they  have  also  allowed  that  at  other  hours,  where  there 
is  not  a  mass  or  any  sacramental  service,  or  any  of  the  author- 
ized services,  the  people  may  have  prayers,  unauthorized  pray- 
ers in  English,  either  with  or  without  the  attendance  of  a 
priest ;  and  the  people  are  cajoled  out  of  a  translation  of  their 
authorized  liturgies  by  the  use,  at  imcanonical  hours,  of  un- 
authorized forms  in  English  ! 


PRAYER  TO   THE    SAINTS. 

The  supposed  Advantage  of  Prayer  to  the  Saints — Objection  arising  from  the  Me- 
diatorship  of  Christ — How  can  the  Saints  hear  our  Prayers — The  Protestant 
View  of  the  Saints  contrasted  with  that  of  the  Romanists — The  Joy  of  Angels,  at 
the  Sinner's  Repentance — Inconsistency  of  the  Romish  Theory — Their  supposed 
Sympathy  with  us— The  Origin  of  the  System  of  Rome — The  true  Source  of 
Comfort  in  the  Sympathy  of  Christ.  , 

It  was  iu  conversation  with  a  man  of  higli  moral  character, 
that  I  took  the  opportunity  of  inquiring  into  the  principle  of 
his  morality.  He  was  a  man  of  very  high  reputation  for  re- 
ligious devotion,  there  was  a  religiousness  about  him  that 
seemed  to  give  a  color  to  all  he  did  ;  so  that  in  all  his  every- 
day dealings,  and  in  the  ordinary  affairs  of  human  life,  in  all 
his  intercourse  with  his  fellow-men,  there  was  a  deep  sense  of 
religion,  a  thorough  and  earnest  religiousness  that  insured 
honesty,  integrity,  frankaess,  kindness,  and  charity.  He  was 
a  man  universally  and  deservedly  respected ;  for  while  religion 
was  his  profession,  it  was  also  his  practice ;  a  rfeligion  that, 
whether  right  or  wrong — and  I  feel  and  know  that  it  was 
wrong — was  real,  unobtrusive,  and  simple.  He  was  a  man 
belonging  to  the  class  of  small  farmers,  cultivating  his  hold- 
ing, which,  though  small,  was  amply  sufficient  to  supply  all 
his  wants,  and  those  of  his  family  ;  so  that  he  held  a  position 
which  made  him,  in  connection  with  his  character,  an  inde- 
pendent and  respected  man. 

It  was  in  conversing  with  this  excellent  man,  in  whom  I 
felt  no  ordinary  interest  as  a  Roman  Catholic,  that  I  asked 
him  to  explain  to  me  how  it  was  that  he  was  enabled  to  resist 
the  temptations  to  which  so  many  others  around  him  were 
constantly  yielding,     I  knew  the  temptations  of  those  around 


188  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

him,  I  knew  they  too  often  yielded  and  fell  into  sin,  and  I  was 
aware  that  this  man  had  been  enabled  to  escape  them.  I 
asked  the  question  frankly,  and  he  answered  as  frankly. 

He  said  that  he  had  devoted  himself  to  St.  Peter,  the 
prince  of  the  apostles,  upon  whom,  as  the  Rock,  our  blessed 
Lord  had  built  the  Church ;  and  that  he  endeavored  to  live 
as  if  St.  Peter  was  beside  him — that  he  endeavored  always  to 
realize  the  constant  presence  of  that  saint — that  his  earnest 
desire  was  to  avoid  doing  any  thing  that  might  possibly  dis- 
please him.  He  stated  that  whenever  he  was  under  tempta- 
tion— Avhenever  there  was  a  danger  of  his  yielding  to  any  sin, 
he  immediately  called  to  mind  the  presence  of  that  apostle, 
and  asked  himself  the  question,  whether  it  might  not  be  dis- 
pleasing to  him ;  and  he  added,  that  it  was  his  experience, 
that  the  thought  of  giving  grief  or  sorrow  to  St.  Peter,  was 
always  able  to  induce  him  to  resist  the  temptation  and  escape 
the  sin. 

This  was  his  own  account  of  the  matter.  And  he  was  one 
who  was  not  deficient  either  in  shrewdness  or  intelligence.  I 
had  known  some  instances  of  persons  bearing  the  same,  pre- 
cisely the  same  feeling  toward  the  Virgin  Mary,  in  reference 
to  whom  such  cases  are  far  from  uncommon  ;  but  I  do  not 
recollect  an  instance  so  peculiar  as  this,  where  every  thing 
was  centered  in  St.  Peter,  and  where  there  was  not  a  word, 
and  apparently  not  even  a  thought,  of  the  Deity. 

I  therefore  remarked  to  him,  though  with  all  gentleness, 
that  he  seemed  to  me  to  have  substituted  St.  Peter  for  his 
Saviour  and  his  God ; — that,  as  it  seemed  to  me,  all  true 
religion  required  of  us  to  show  this  religiousness  of  feeling 
toward  Christ,  to  realize  his  presence,  and  seek  his  favor,  and 
to  shrink  from  the  thought  of  doing  any  thing  that  could 
wound  the  love  of  so  loving  a  Saviour — that  he,  instead  of 
this,  had  exalted  Peter  to  the  place  of  Christ — had  substituted 
the  creature  for  the  Creator — and  thus  practically  had  made 
Peter  his  Saviour  and  his  God. 

He  replied  that  he  had  no  such  intention — that  such  inten- 
tion would  be  the  last  thing  in  his  thoughts — that  he  was  an 


PRATER   TO    THE    SAINTS.  189 

unlearned  man,  and  could  not  enter  into  the  niceties  of  such 
questions,  but  that  he  knew  by  experience  that  by  devoting 
himself  to  St.  Peter,  and  by  thinking  of  him  in  the  time  of 
temptation,  he  was  enabled  to  escape.  And  he  was  therefore 
sure  that  such  devoteduess  on  his  part  could  not  be  deemed 
dishonoring  to  God. 

I  endeavored  to  impress  on  him  that  it  was  a  renunciation 
of  all  true  and  right-minded  allegiance  to  our  earthly  sove- 
reign, either  to  dethrone  him  on  the  one  hand,  or  to  exalt  a 
mere  subject  on  the  other,  substituting  him  in  the  place  of 
the  sovereign,  rendering  to  this  subject  the  honor  and  the 
homage,  and  the  obedience,  and  the  loyalty,  that  rightfully 
belonged  only  to  the  sovereign — that  the  principle  which  he 
had  expressed  was  thus  practically  dethroning  the  King  of 
kings,  by  placing  another,  and  that  other  a  fallen  and  sinful 
creature,  on  the  throne.  I  added,  that  he  had  to.uched  one 
of  the  essential  differences  between  the  Church  of  England 
and  the  Church  of  Rome.  The  one  always  exalting  the  Sav- 
iour, the  other  exalting  the  saints ;  the  one  worshiping  the 
l!reator,  the  other  substituting  the  creature  in  his  stead. 

T  can  not  say  that  he  seemed  at  all  impressed  with  what  I 
thus  stated,  yet  he  had  listened  with  evident  interest  and  re- 
spect, as,  indeed,  he  habitually  did  whenever  I  conversed  with 
him.  So  I  remarked  to  him,  that  the  success,  or  experience 
as  he  called  it,  of  his  system,  might  perhaps  be  accounted  for 
by  his  thoughts  being  turned  away  from  the  temptation 
which  he  dreaded.  I  told  "him  that  my  own  habit  was,  that 
whenever  I  felt  tempted  to  murmur,  repine,  or  give  way  to 
any  other  temptation,  I  endeavored  to  bring  my  thoughts  to 
some  precious  promise  of  the  word  iif  God,  and  then,  by 
filling  my  mind  with  thoughts  of  the  love  or  the  gentleness, 
or  the  sufferings,  or  the  death  of  Christ — filling  my  mind  with 
the  memory  of  his  gracious  words,  and  gentle  invitations, 
and  precious  promises — filling  my  mind  with  thoughts  of 
high  hopes  and  a  glorious  future — I  found  that  such  thoughts 
of  Christ  shut  out  the  thoughts  of  evil,  and  thus  the  tempta- 
tion was  overcome  by  these  holy  thoughts,  suggested  by  the 


190  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

Holy  Spirit,  who  was  ever  ready  to  strengthen  the  children 
of  God. 

He  seemed  to  me  to  like  this  mode  of  dealing  with  tempta- 
tion ;  and  therefore,  after  pressing  it  somewhat  more,  I  took 
occasion  to  ask  him,  how  he  could  suppose  St.  Peter  could 
know  his  thoughts  and  temptations,  so  as  to  help  him  in  his 
time  of  need.  If,  I  added,  we  come  to  God — to  Christ,  there 
is  no  difficulty.  The  omnipresence,  the  omniscience,  and  the 
omnipotence  of  Him,  "  whom  the  heaven  of  heavens  can  not 
contain,"  explain  every  thing  in  reference  to  Him.  But  Peter 
was  merely  a  man  ;  and  though  a  sainted,  that  is,  a  holy  man, 
yet  he  is  now  in  heaven,  and  can  not  see  the  heart,  or  know 
the  thoughts,  or  hear  the  prayers  of  his  votaries  on  earth. 

He  seemed  at  first  to  think  lightly  of  this,  as  if  he  had  al- 
ways thought  it  a  matter  of  course,  that  the  saint  in  heaven 
could  know  the  thoughts  and  see  the  devotion  and  hear  the 
prayers  of  his  votaries  on  earth.  His  manner  and  his  first 
natural  expressions  showed  that  he  had  always  assumed  this 
in  his  mind — that  he  had  always  taken  it  for  granted — that  a 
doubt  of  it  had  never  passed  over  his  thoughts.  But  after  a 
few  moments  there  seemed  to  pass  over  him  a  cloud,  and  he 
was  silent  and  thoughtful.  I  saw  the  cause,  and  therefore 
urged  the  point  further,  saying  that  it  seemed  to  me  unreas- 
onable and  impossible,  that  when  men  were  praying  in  China, 
in  Canada,  in  Egypt,  in  Russia,  in  Italy,  in  England,  to  one 
and  the  same  saint  in  heaven,  and  at  one  and  the  same  time — 
when  not  a  few  but  many  millions  were  so  engaged — it  seem- 
ed, I  said,  unreasonable  and  impossible,  that  the  saint  should 
hear  and  understand  them  all.  I  added,  that  as  prayer  was 
not  merely  the  utterance  of  words  that  could  be  heard,  but 
was  often  the  sigh  and  wish  and  aspiration  of  the  soul,  un- 
spoken and  unheard,  so  it  was  impossible  to  see  and  know  the 
devotedness  or  the  worship  of  any  votaries,  without  know- 
ing the  secret  thoughts,  the  minds,  and  liearts  of  all ;  so  as 
to  be  able  to  judge  of  the  earnestness,  the  sincerity,  the  piety, 
the  religiousness  of  the  parties.  There  can  be  no  use  in  pray- 
ing to  the  saint,  unless  he  is  able,  in  the  height,  and  glory, 


PRAYER   TO   THE    SAINTS.  191 

and  happiness  of  heaven,  to  see,  and  hear,  and  know  all — not 
some,  but  all — that  passes  in  the  hearts  and  minds  of  men  on 
earth.  And  he  must  also  know  all  their  trials,  weaknesses, 
temptations,  so  as  to  know  all  the  circumstances  that  aggra- 
vate their  sins,  and  all  the  peculiarities  that  extenuate  their 
failings.  There  is  no  such  difficulty  in  reference  to  Him  of 
whom  it  is  said:  "He  searcheth  the  heart  and  trieth  the 
reins ;"  and  again,  "  Thou  knowest  all  things  ;"  and  again,  "All 
things  are  naked  and  open  before  the  eyes  of  him  with  whom 
we  have  to  do."  This  is  true  of  the  great  Omniscient,  Omnip- 
otent, and  Omnipresent  Spirit,  and  therefore  we  can  come  to 
him  in  prayer,  in  the  fullest  certainty  of  his  being  able  both 
to  hear  and  to  answer.  But  as  to  any  saint  in  heaven,  finite 
creature  as  he  must  be,  to  enrobe  him  with  such  attributes, 
would  be  a  worshiping  the  creature  as  the  Creator — it  would 
be  an  investing  him  with  the  essence  of  the  Godhead. 

He  was  a  man  of  too  much  intelligence  not  to  see  the  im- 
portance of  this  consideration  ;  and  he  had  too  much  sim- 
plicity not  to  acknowledge  the  difficulty  that  it  threw  in  the 
way  of  his  theory.  But  it  was  apparent  from  what  he  said 
that  he  had  entertained  some  very  high  imaginings  about  the 
power  and  holiness  and  privileges  of  the  saints,  and  was  jeal- 
ous of  an  argument  which  went  to  strip  them  of  that  which 
was  habitually  associated  in  his  mind  with  all  his  ideas  of  the 
saints.  And  he  asked  me  earnestly,  whether  I  really  thought 
it  possible  they  could  be  saints  in  glory  and  yet  be  unacquainted 
with  all  below. 

I  replied,  that  I  had  evidently  far  higher  ideas  of  the  hap- 
piness and  glory  of  the  saints  in  heaven,  than  he  seemed  to 
entertain,  and  that  it  was  he  who  was  depriving  them  of  their 
truest  and  loftiest  privileges  and  blessedness. 

He  seemed  unable  to  understand  this  without  explanation, 
and  he  asked  me  to  explain  myself,  for  he  had  always  felt  that 
the  Church  of  Rome  paid  infinitely  more  reverence  to  the 
saints  than  did  the  Protestant  Church ;  for  that  Protestants 
neither  pray  to  them,  nor  to  their  pictures,  nor  kneel  to  them, 


192  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

aud  seem  to  think  no  more  of  them  than  if  there  were  no 
saints  whatever  in  glory. 

I  stated  in  reply,  with  every  expression  of  kindness  and 
gentleness  to  those  who  live  in  error,  from  having  been  long 
habituated  to  it  from  their  earliest  childhood,  that  Roman 
Catholics  seemed  to  me  to  think  too  poorly,  too  meanly  of  the 
state  of  the  saints,  and  that  the  Protestants  seemed  on  the 
other  hand  to  regard  them  in  a  far  higher  light.  I  said  that 
we  beheved  from  some  passages  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  that 
the  saints  are  in  heaven — that  they  are  in  the  company  of 
Jesus  Christ — that  they  are  in  the  very  presence  of  God — that 
there,  amid  a  countless  multitude  of  angels  and  of  redeemed 
souls,  they  live  in  a  state  of  profound  adoration,  and  blessing 
and  praise,  ever  looking  upon  God,  praising  his  goodness,  won- 
dering at  his  glories,  and  loving  him  as  the  object  of  all  holy 
love.  There  they  are  in  a  state  of  the  most  perfect  holiness, 
and  in  the  enjoyment  of  an  unutterable  happiness.  No  cloud 
can  even  dim  the  brightness  of  God's  countenance.  No 
shadow  can  ever  pass  over  their  thoughts  to  saddem  them. 
No  thought  or  no  vision  can  ever  come  over  their  happy  and 
blessed  minds  that  could  impair  their  perfect  happiness  and 
perfect  blessedness,  for  there  all  was  happiness  and  blessed- 
ness, amid  scenes  of  the  purest  holiness,  and  if  ever  there 
were  thoughts  of  the  world  and  the  scenes  and  the  homes 
they  had  left  forever,  it  was  only  to  make  them  more  full  of 
thankfulness  and  gratitude  to  Him  who  had  redeemed  them, 
and  washed  them  in  His  blood,  and  had  purchased  for  them 
this  glorious  inheritance,  so  that  their  whole  mind  is  filled 
with  the  thought  of  God,  and  their  whole  heart  filled  with  the 
love  of  God. 

I  then  read  several  passages  of  Scripture,  as  Rev.  vii.  9-17 ; 
also  xxi.  3-5  ;  also  xxii.  1-5,  And  after  we  had  talked 
pleasantly  and  profitably  on  the  glorious  hopes  of  the  Chris- 
tian, I  asked  him  whether  he  did  not  think  that  we  Protestants 
held  very  high  and  lofty  ideas  of  the  glory  and  blessedness  of 
the  saints  ?  He  seemed  to  feel  if,  for  he  had  entered  very 
fully  into  all  I  said. 


PRAYEK  TO  THE  SAINTS.         -      193 

I  therefore  took  the  occasion  to  say  that  I  thought  it  would 
mar  and  injure  all  this  happiness,  if  the  saints  were  to  see 
and  hear,  and  know  all  that  was  passing  on  earth.  If  a  father 
or  a  mother  could  look  down,  and  see  and  know  all  the  sins, 
the  follies,  the  sorrows,  and  the  shame  of  their  children — if 
they  could  see  and  know  all  the  troubles  and  miseries,  and 
disasters  that  befall  them,  it  certainly  would  cloud  and  darken 
their  brightest  hours  even  in  heaven.  If  a  husband  or  a  wife, 
who  had  lived  holy  on  earth,  and  was  now  sainted  iu  the 
skies,  was  destined  to  see  and  know  the  after-career  of  the 
one  who  was  so  long  the  partner  of  every  thought,  and  the 
sharer  of  every  feeling,  and  the  companion  of  every  pleasure ; 
and  to  see  and  know  themselves  forgotten  and  unthought-of, 
and  altogether  unsorrowed  and  unwept — to  see  and  know 
that  all  love  was  vanished,  and  infidelity  come  in — and  all 
vows  and  promises  broken  and  gone — and  to  see  and  know 
their  place  in  the  home,  in  the  thoughts,  in  the  affections,  oc- 
cupied by  others,  it  certainly  would  be  no  source  of  increase 
to  the  happiness  of  their  heaven.  It  will  not  be  reasonable 
to  suppose,  that  the  saints  in  heaven  see  and  know  only  that 
portion  of  the  things  of  those  they  have  left  on  earth,  which 
is  pleasant  and  flattering  ;  they  must  also  be  supposed  to  see 
those  that  are  unpleasant  and  painful.  If  they  can  hear  our 
prayers  to  be  delivered  from  sickness,  or  sorrow,  or  suff'erincf^ 
they  can  also  hear  our  sighing  under  sorrow ;  our  groaning 
under  suffering  ;  and  our  complaining  under  sickness.  K  they 
can  see  us  in  our  hours  of  devotion,  they  can  see  us  in  our 
hours  of  recklessness  ;  and  if  they  can  read  the  holy  thoughts 
of  our  hearts,  they  can  scan  the  unholy  feelings  of  our  bodies. 
If  they  can  look  on  us  in  our  acts  of  prayer,  they  can  also 
look  upon  us  in  our  works  of  sin  ;  and,  I  added,  that  when  we 
consider  that  in  every  one  of  us,  even  the  holiest  and  the  best, 
there  is  always  more  of  evil  than  good  ;  more  of  sin  than 
hohness ;  more  to  be  deplored  than  praised  :  we  must  con- 
clude, that  it  would  not  be  for  the  happiness  of  the  saints  in 
heaven,  that  they  should  be  able  to  see  or  know  what  is  pass- 
ing on  earth  among  those  whom  they  'eft  behind  them. 

9 


194  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

My  companion  had  listened  with  earnest  attention,  while  I 
dwelt,  at  sonie  length,  on  this  point ;  and  although  at  first  he 
said  nothing,  I  yet  felt  that  my  argument  was  taking  effect  on 
his  mind.  It  appeared  as  if  his  feeling  was  against  me,  while 
his  judgment  was  with  me  ;  so  I  reminded  him,  that  our  con- 
versation had  very  much  arisen  out  of  his  stating  that  one  way 
in  which  he  kept  himself  from  the  commission  of  sin,  was  re- 
flecting how  much  his  sin  would  grieve  Saint  Peter.  Surely, 
if  Saint  Peter  is  grieved  at  every  sin  committed  thus  by  all 
that  believe  in  him,  he  can  not  but  have  more  grief  than  joy 
in  his  heavenly  state.  It  must  be  heart-breaking  for  him  to 
witness  all  the  alienation  from  God,  all  the  departures  from 
holiness,  all  the  carelessness  about  the  soul,  all  the  ingratitude 
toward  the  Saviour,  in  short,  all  the  folly,  the  vice,  the  unholi- 
ness,  the  worldliness,  the  unbelief,  the  sins,  that  cloud  and 
darken  our  lives.  On  the  other  hand,  if  we  shut  out  all  this, 
so  sad  and  so  painful  to  a  holy  mind,  and  so  inexpressibly  sad 
and  painful  to  those  who  arc  amid  the  holiness  of  heaven — if 
we  shut  out  all  this  from  their  knowledge,  and  regard  them  as 
ever  living  in  the  presence  of  God,  ever  circling  around  the 
throne  above,  ever  dwelling  with  the  Saviour,  ever  associating 
with  angelic  spirits  and  redeemed  souls,  ever  admiring  his 
glories,  wondering  at  his  love,  and  praising  his  goodness,  and 
thus  living  all  holy  and  happy,  without  one  thought  to  mar 
their  holiness  or  dim  their  happiness,  then  indeed  we  have 
a  far  higher  idea  of  the  state  of  the  saints  above,  than  in 
supposing  them  to  have  any  cognizance  of  the  things  on 
earth.  We  are  told  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  that  Josiah 
was  removed  from  this  life,  in  order  that  he  might  not 
know  the  evils  that  were  about  to  befall  the  land.  This  im- 
plies that  our  removal  to  heaven  removes  us  altogether,  not 
only  from  the  affairs  of  this  present  world,  but  also  from  the 
knowledge  of  them.  And  this  seems  essential  to  all  real 
happiness  for  man. 

He  seemed  to  assent  to  all  this,  and  said  that  it  certainly 
gave  a  very  high  idea  of  the  state  and  the  happiness  of  the 
saints  in  glory  ;  adding  that  it  must  pain  them  much  to  see 


PRAYER   TO    THE    SAINTS.  195 

or  know  the  wickedness  of  men's  hearts,  and  the  many  sins  of 
the  best  among  us. 

I  then  remarked,  that  he  could  thus  perceive  that  we  Prot- 
estants had  not  less  exalted  notions  of  the  saints,  than  had 
Roman  Catholics.  We  regard  them  as  in  the  highest  holiness 
and  happiness.  And  we  desire  and  pray  to  be  able  to  imitate 
them,  and  follow  them  in  the  example  of  their  holiness,  but 
we  do  not  pray  to  them,  because  we  think  that  prayer  belongs 
exclusively  to  God,  and  also  because  we  think  the  saints  can 
not  hear  our  prayers,  and  there  is  no  use  in  praying  to  them, 
if  they  can  not  hear  us. 

After  a  pause  of  some  duration,  in  which  I  left  his  mind  to 
work  on  what  had  been  said,  he  broke  it  by  staying  that  it  was 
plain  from  the  words  of  the  Scriptures,  that  the  saints  knew 
when  we  repented,  for  that  the  Blessed  Saviour  had  said,  there 
was  joy  in  heaven  in  the  presence  of  the  angels  of  God,  over 
the  sinner  that  repents ;  so  that,  if  they  can  know  the  repent- 
ance, they  can  know  the  prayers  he  has  made  to  them.  He 
asked  me  how  I  could  explain  that  statement,  consistently 
with  the  views  I  had  expressed. 

I  said  at  once,  that  the  words  of  our  Lord  had  reference  to 
the  anarels,  and  not  to  the  saints — had  reference  to  those  an- 
gels,  who  are  the  ministers  and  messengers  of  his  will  through- 
out the  world,  and  who  are  expressly  said  to  be  "  ministering 
spirits,  sent  forth  to  minister  unto  them,  that  are  the  heirs  of 
salvation."  It  may  be  reasonable  therefore  to  suppose  that  it 
is  necessary  for  them  in  passing  to  and  fro  through  the  world 
to  know  some  things  respecting  those  on  earth.  But  this  is  a 
.Avidely  different  thing  from  the  saints,  who  are  not  angelic 
spirits,  but  men  who  have  been  glorified  in  heaven ;  and  al- 
though the  children  of  God  after  the  resurrection  will  be  equal 
to  the  angels,  yet  it  will  be  in  holiness  and  happiness,  and  love 
of  God,  and  not  in  ofiice. 

He  saw  this  distinction  clearly,  and  acknowledged  its  pro- 
priety, and  added,  that  he  did  not  remember  having  heard  it 
pointed  out  before. 

I  then  stated,  that  although  that  was  the  ordinary  answer 


196  EVENINGS    WITH   THE    ROMANISTS. 

given  to  this  argument  .is  derived  from  the  particular  Scrip- 
ture to  which  he  had  referred,  yet  it  was  by  no  means  the 
best  or  fittest  answer — that  the  whole  passage  was  sadly  mis- 
understood, and  perverted  by  many  who  ought  to  know  better 
— and  that,  if  he  would  bear  with  me  for  a  few  minutes,  while 
I  read  and  explained  the  place,  I  thought  he  would  agree  with 
me  as  to  its  real  meaning,  for  that  I  never  knew  a  really  de- 
vout and  religious  mind  that  did  not  at  once  embrace  that 
meaning  when  laid  before  it. 

I  then  reminded  him  that  the  place  to  which  he  had  refer- 
red, occurred  in  the  fifteenth  of  the  Gospel  according  to  St. 
Luke ;  and  that  it  occurred  in  a  parable,  of  which  there 
were  three,  all  in  the  same  chapter  and  all  illustrating  the 
same  truth — a  truth  of  the  greatest  encouragement  and  com- 
fort to  the  believer.  That  truth  was  the  joy  and  rejoicing  it 
brought  to  the  heart  of  God  to  receive  the  repentant  and  re- 
turning sinner.  In  the  langaiage  of  Holy  Scripture,  our  God 
is  described  as  compassionating,  yearning  over  and  loving  the 
poor  unhappy  sinner,  and  then  rejoicing  when  he  sees  him 
reflecting  and  returning  to  him.  Tliis  is  the  truth — the  joy 
of  God — which  our  Lord  is  teaching  in  each  of  these  three 
parables. 

The  first  parable  is  that  of  the  shepherd  and  the  stray  sheep, 
and  it  occurs  at  verse  4.  The  great  and  principal  object  of 
this  parable  is  to  show  the  yearning  and  carefulness  of  the 
shepherd  for  the  sheep  which  lie  had  lost,  and  his  extreme 
joy  at  recovering  it  again.  And  as  Jesus  Christ  is  "  the  good 
shepherd,"  and  "  the  great  Bishop  and  Shepherd  of  our  souls," 
so  the  object  of  the  parable  was  to  illustrate  his  joy  in  receiv- 
ing again  the  wandering  sinner,  who  had  returned  to  the  fold 
he  "had  left ;  and  to  make  this  his  joy  the  more  apparent,  he  is 
described  as  telling  it  to  all  his  friends,  and  desiring  them  to 
share  in  his  rejoicing,  illustrating  as  it  were,  our  Lord  pro- 
claiming throughout  the  heavens  above,  the  glad  tidings  of 
the  lost  sinner  having  repented  and  returned.  "  I  say  unto 
you  that  likewise  joy  shall  be  in  heaven  over  one  sinner  that 
repenteth."     The   parable   shows  the  joy  of  the   shepherd 


PRATER   TO    THE    SAINTS.  197 

rather  than  the  joy  of  tlie  friends,  and  so  it  is  designed  to  il- 
histrate  the  joy  of  God  in  the  presence  of  all  the  angels  of 
heaven,  rather  than  merely  the  joy  of  the  angels — the  joy  of 
our  God,  rather  than  the  joy  of  his  angels. 

The  second  parable  is  at  verse  8.  The  object  here  is  evi- 
dent, to  show  the  esteem  aud  value  which  this  woman  put  on 
her  piece  of  silver,  which  she  had  lost ; — to  show  the  careful- 
ness and  anxiety  with  which  she  sought  it  again — and  her 
great  delight  at  having  found  it ;  calling  to  all  her  friends  and 
neighbors,  and  telling  them  of  her  joy,  and  asking  them  to 
rejoice  with  her.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  intention 
of  this  was,  to  illustrate  the  love  of  the  Saviour,  yearning  over 
and  seeking  the  lost  and  wandering  sinner ;  and  so  rejoicing 
at  seeing  his  repentance,  as  that  He  proclaims  the  event  to  all 
the  heavens,  that  the  angelic  spirits  might  hear  and  rejoice 
likewise.  "  Likewise,  I  say  unto  you,  there  is  joy  in  the  pres- 
ence of  the  angels  of  God  over  one  sinner  that  repenteth." 
Thus  it  is  a  joy  in  the  presence  of  the  angels,  that  is,  a  joy  of 
God ;  not  so  much  a  joy  of  angels  as  a  joy  of  God  in  their 
presence,  that  our  Lord  desires  to  describe. 

The  last  of  those  remarkable  parables  is  one  universally 
known  and  understood;  it  is  at  verse  11.  The  point  of  this 
parable,  taken  in  connection  with  the  preceding  ones,  is  where 
the  Father  is  described  as  seeing  his  returning  son,  while  yet 
afar  off,  running  to  meet  him,  and  b'ssing  him,  and  welcoming 
him  lovingly  as  if  he  had  never  erred ;  and  never  even  utter- 
ing a  word  of  rebuke  or  unkindness ;  being  so  full  of  joy  and 
rejoicing  at  receiving  his  prodigal  and  erring  child,  now  repent- 
ant and  returning.  His  telling  his  neighbors  and  friends  is 
designed  to  show  the  greatness  of  his  joy.  There  can  be  no 
mistake  as  to  the  purport  of  all  this :  it  is  impossible  to  read 
it  without  feeling  that  all  is  designed  to  illustrate  the  loving 
and  fatherly  heart  of  God,  yearning  after  a  lost  and  erring 
soul,  and  rejoicing  over  his  repentance — "  He  desireth  not  the 
death  of  a  sinner,  but  rather  that  he  should  turn  from  his  sins 
and  live."  The  parable  beautifully  illustrates  this  yearning 
and  loving  spirit  of  our  Father  in  heaven ;  and  as  beautifully 


198  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

depicts  the  joy  aud  happiness  it  brings  to  His  heart,  when  the 
sinner  turns  from  his  sins  and  seeks  aofain  the  bosom  of  his 
God.  But  it  is  appareiit  in  all  this,  that  the  object  of  our 
Lord  in  the  parable,  was  not  to  represent  the  knowledge  or 
the  love  or  the  joy  merely  of  the  angels,  but  of  that  which  is 
incomparably  more  important  to  us,  namely,  the  knowledge 
and  the  love  and  the  joy  of  God  himself. 

Having  thus  gone  through  each  of  the  parables,  and  my 
companion  having  in  a  very  lively  way  shown  his  assent  to 
all  I  said,  as  I  spoke  of  each  of  them,  I  endeavored  to  impress 
him  with  what  was  my  own  feeling ;  namely,  that  we  lose  all 
the  real  beauty  and  power  of  these  parables,  when  we  look  on 
them  as  merely  designed  to  illustrate  the  joy  of  angels  over 
the  repentant  sinner.  It  is  the  joy  of  God  himself^ — the  joy 
of  the  Great  and  Inefiable  One — the  joy  of  our  lieavenly 
Father  himself,  it  is  this  which  the  parables  are  designed  to 
illustrate.  And  this  is  a  well-spring  of  comfort  and  encourage- 
ment. It  is  nothing — comparatively  nothing,  to  be  told  that 
the  angels  rejoice  at  the  repentance  of  the  sinner,  though  that 
is  most  true,  and  the  parables  imply  it ;  but  it  is  every  thing 
to  know  that  our  God  himself  so  loves  us,  so  yearns  over  us, 
so  watches  us,  so  longs  for  our  repentance  that  He,  even  He, 
rejoices  to  receive  us ;  and  so  rejoices,  that  He  shows  that  joy 
in  the  presence  of  all  the  angelic  inhabitants  of  heaven,  and 
invites  them  to  share  in  his  joy.  There  is  no  comfort,  I  added, 
and  no  encouragement  whether  in  life  or  in  death,  like  feeling 
in  our  hearts  that  God  loves  us,  and  rejoices  to  be  gracious 
to  us. 

He  fully  entered  into  this  feeling :  he  could  conceive,  he 
said,  of  nothing  beyond  it,  and  his  whole  countenance  showed 
the  reality  of  his  words ;  but  after  a  short  pause  he  seemed 
doubtfully  to  shake  his  head,  and  he  said  it  seemed  too  much, 
too  high,  too  far  beyond  all  that  a  poor  sinner  could  hope  or 
dream  of.  He  had,  he  added,  never  dared  to  look  so  high, 
and  had  always  felt  that  it  was  wonderful  that  even  the  holy 
angels,  or  the  blessed  saints  should  think  of  us.  And  surely, 
lie  said,  the  blessed  saints,  though  now  in  glory,  were  once 


PRAYER  TO  THE  SAINTS.  199 

like  ourselves  on  earth,  and  could  feel  for  us,  and  feel  witli  us. 
It  is  true  they  were  a  thousand  times  more  good,  and  holy, 
and  full  of  grace ;  but  still  they  were  human  creatures,  and 
they  may  perhaps  be  the  more  able  to  feel  with  us,  and  it  is 
therefore  that  Roman  Catholics  come  to  them,  and  pray  them 
to  pray  for  us,  that  God  may  through  their  intercession  grant 
us  what  we  fear  ourselves  to  ask  of  Him,  We  feel  that  we 
are  not  worthy  of  coming  to  God,  or  of  being  heard  by  Him 
and  therefore  we  humbly  approach  Him,  through  his  blessed 
saints. 

I  said  that  I  was  quite  aware  of  that,  but  that  as  I  had  said 
before,  there  was  no  use  praying  to  those  who  could  not  hear 
us,  and  could  not  know  our  hearts  or  thoughts  or  prayers,  so 
I  looked  on  it  as  a  very  great  error  to  pray  to  these  saints 
who  can  not  hear,  instead  of  praying  to  that  God  who  can  hear 
us.  And  I  reminded  him  that  he  had  failed  to  show  that  the 
saints  can  hear,  or  know,  or  see  any  thing  about  us,  and  that 
the  parables  to  which  he  had  referred  me,  had  been  seen  to 
involve  nothing  of  the  kind  ;  so  I  again  asked  him  to  tell  me 
how  they  can  hear  our  prayers ;  how  it  was  possible  that  any 
saint,  even  St.  Peter,  to  whom  he  habitually  prayed,  or  even 
the  Virgin  Mary,  who  was  so  much  the  object  of  prayer  in 
the  Church  of  Rome,  could  hear  the  prayers  of  their  many 
votaries,  oftered  in  so  many  lands.  With  an  infinite  God  we 
see  no  diflBculty.  His  omnipotence,  omniscience,  and  omni- 
presence accomplish  all ;  but  with  finite  beings  like  the  saints 
all  this  is  impossible.  It  is  against  reason  to  believe  it,  and 
there  is  nothins:  in  revelation  to  sanction  it. 

He  said  that  it  might  be,  that  though  the  saints  could  not 
of  themselves  know  our  prayers,  yet  God  might  reveal  them 
to  them  ;  that  thus  it  might  be  as  in  the  parable,  God  calling 
to  them,  telling  them,  and  then  asking  them  to  rejoice  with 
Him.  They  might  thus  know  our  devotion,  our  praying,  and 
all  our  reverence  to  them. 

I  answered  that  this  was  quite  possible  when  taken  gener- 
ally, as  that  when  God  expressed  and  showed  his  joy,  at  the 
repentance  of  a  sinner,  tl^^e  angels  and  saints  in  heaven  might 


200  EVENINGS    WITH   THE    ROMANISTS. 

see  his  joy  and  know  the  cause ;  but  this  was  a  diiferent  thing 
altogether  from  their  hearing  our  prayers,  seeing  our  devo- 
tions, and  knowing  our  hearts.  But  besides  this,  this  idea 
could  not  hel])  his  object.  He  supposed  that  God  told  our 
prayers  to  the  saints,  and  that  the  saints  revealed  them  back 
again  to  God — that  He  revealed  our  wants  to  the  saints,  and 
that  the  saints  revealed  them  back  again  to  God  !  This  was 
not  approaching  God  through  the  medium  of  the  saints,  but  it 
was  approaching  the  saints  through  the  medium  of  God  ;  or, 
to  express  the  matter  in  another  and  more  theological  manner, 
it  was  not  coming  to  God  through  the  saints,  as  mediators  of 
intercession  with  him,  but  it  was  coming  to  the  saints  through 
God,  as  a  mediator  of  intercession  with  them  !  I  added  that 
I  had  often  heard  all  this  from  devout  and  religious  members 
of  the  Church  of  Rome,  in  their  endeavors  to  excuse  and  jus- 
tify their  practice  of  praying  to  the  saints  in  glory,  but  that  it 
seemed  to  me  to  j^ass  all  the  bounds  of  the  reasonable.  It 
seemed  to  throw  rather  an  air  of  the  ridiculous  over  the  prac- 
tice ;  for  whereas  you,  yourself,  have  stated  that  you  devote 
yourself  and  present  your  prayers  to  St.  Peter,  asking  of  him 
to  pray  to  God  for  you — to  intercede  with  God  for  you — to 
tell  God  your  wants,  and  obtain  them  for  you — after  all  it  ap- 
pears that  it  is  not  St.  Peter  who  tells  your  wants  to  God,  but 
God  who  must  first  tell  them  to  St.  Peter ;  and  as  for  your 
prayers,  it  is  not  St.  Peter  who  conveys  them  to  God,  but  it  is 
God  who  conveys  them  to  St.  Peter.  And  thus  according  to 
this  hyj)othesis,  your  jjrayers  must  after  all  come  first  to  God, 
he  then  reveals  them  to  St.  Peter,  and  then  St.  Peter  prays 
them  back  again  to  God  !  Surely  you  do  not  think  this  idea 
justified,  either  by  reason  or  by  revelation. 

But — he  asked  emphatically — would  you  not  approach  an 
earthly  king  or  queen,  through  the  medium  of  their  favorites 
and  courtiers  ?  you  would  not  presume  to  enter  at  once  into 
the  royal  presence  and  make  your  request ;  in  the  same  way 
ought  we  not — is  it  not  more  humble  and  reverential,  to  ap- 
proach our  God,  the  great  God  of  Heaven,  through  those  angels 
and  saints  who  are  his  favorites  and  friends  l 


PRAYER   TO   THE    SAINTS.  201 

I  answered  by  saying  that  even  supposing  his  principle  was 
sound  and  good,  which  I  did  not  think  it  was,  still  he  himself 
did  not  act  on  it,  nor  did  his  system  base  itself  on  it.  His 
system  was,  to  offer  a  prayer  to  a  saint,  which  that  saint  could 
not  hear — that  God,  the  great  God  of  Heaven,  heard  it  first, 
and  then  told  it  to  the  saint,  and  that  then  the  saint  told  it 
back  again  to  God.  According  to  this  system  you  always  go 
first  to  God,  you  always  first  approach  God  himself,  and  not 
his  saints  or  angels.  It  is  as  if  you  had  a  petition  to  present 
to  the  king,  and  wished  to  present  it  through  one  of  his  favor- 
ites, but  this  favorite  does  not  hear  you,  while  the  king  him- 
self does  hear  you  ;  and  therefore  your  system  supposes  the 
king  to  present  your  petition  to  his  favorite,  and  then  this 
favorite  presents  it  back  again  on  your  behalf  to  the  king ! 
Thus,  I  added,  your  own  system  is  a  direct  contradiction  of 
your  own  argument. 

He  seemed  much  perplexed  at  this,  and  evidently  could  not 
see  his  way  out  of  the  labyrinth.  And  he  was  a  man  too 
honest  and  true,  and  too  much  in  earnest  as  to  religion,  to 
make  a  mere  effort  at  getting  over  a  difficulty ;  so  he  endeav- 
ored to  put  the  point  in  another  light.  He  asked  me  whether 
I  did  not  think  the  saints  in  glory  were  constantly  praying  for 
us  on  earth,  at  least  that  they  were  willing  to  pray  for  us  ; — 
that  they  were  true  and  loving  friends  and  brothers  to  us,  and 
were  always  ready  and  willing  to  pray  to  God  for  us.  And  if 
this  was  the  case,  it  could  be  no  harm,  no  sin,  to  ask  them  to 
pray  for  us — and  that  this  was  all  they  meant  by  the  ora  pro 
nobis,  ihe  pray  for  us,  in  the  Church  of  Rome. 

I  reminded  him  that  they  offered  much  more  than  a  simple 
07'a  pro  nobis — that  they  prayed  of  the  saints  for  grace,  for 
hohness,  for  piety,  for  sanctification,  for  devotion,  for  faith,  for 
salvation — that  all  these  petitions  were  embodied  in  several  of 
their  prayers,  in  their  standard  books  of  devotion.  And  that 
it  was  something  more  than  a  simple  oi-a  pro  nobis,  a  simple 
pray  for  its.  But,  I  added,  that  even  supposing  this  were  all, 
and  supposing  you  have  a  pious  friend  and  Christian  brother 
in  America,  or  in  Asin,  one  who  loves  your  soul,  and  con- 

9* 


202  EVENINGS    WITH   THE    ROMANISTS. 

stantlj  prays  for  you;  do  you  tliink  you  would  be  acting-  ra- 
tionally or  Christianly  to  go  on  your  knees,  and  in  this  Europe, 
pray  to  a  man  in  America  or  Asia  to  pray  to  God  for  you, 
when  you  are  aware  he  can  not  hear  you,  or  even  know  that 
you  are  praying  to  him  or  any  one  else  ?  If  he  could  hear 
you,  if  he  could  know  it,  if  by  letter  or  otherwise,  he  could  be 
aware  of  it,  there  would  be  something  reasonable  in  it;  but  so 
long  as  he  can  neither  hear  or  know  it,  the  thing  must  be 
most  unreasonable. 

He  felt  this  fully,  and  acknowledged  it.  He  had  many 
friends  and  relations  who  had  emigrated  to  America.  He  had 
sometimes  contemplated  going  there  himself,  and  therefore  he 
was  able  fully  to  appreciate  the  allusion.  I  therefore  took  the 
occasion  to  strengthen  my  argument  by  asking  him  to  repeat 
for  me  the  Conjiteor,  or  form  of  confession,  as  contained  in 
their  liturgy. 

He  at  once  complied,  repeating  the  words. 

I  then  observed,  that  in  that  form  he  had  made  confession 
of  sin  to  God,  to  the  Virgin  Mary,  to  St.  Peter,  and  to  other 
saints,  all  alike  ;  he  made  no  distinction  among  them.  I  added, 
that  I  could  understand  his  making  confession  to  God,  who 
could  hear  his  words  and  know  his  heart ; — that  I  could  also 
understand  his  confession  to  the  priest,  who  could  hear  his 
words,  though  he  could  not  see  his  heart ;  but  that  I  could 
not  comprehend  his  making  confession  to  Mary,  to  Peter,  or 
to  the  other  saints,  who  could  not  possibly  hear  his  words  or 
read  his  thoughts.  Where,  I  asked,  could  be  the  use  of  con- 
fessing to  those  who  can  not  hear  you  ? 

He  stated  frankly  that  he  was  unable  to  answer  me — that 
the  idea  of  the  saints  not  knowing  our  confessions  and  prayers 
had  never  occurred  to  him,  and  that  he  had  always  taken  it 
as  a  matter  of  course,  as  if  it  were  a  part  of  their  blessedness 
in  their  state  of  glory.  He  had  always  thought  thus  ;  but  he 
acknowledged  he  knew  no  way  of  explaining  how  or  in  what 
manner  it  was.  He  then  stated,  that  he  had  always  practiced 
it  as  taught  in  his  Church,  on  the  ground  of  its  humility,  as 
becoming  a  poor  sinner  like  himself,  to  be  humble,  as  unwill- 


PRAYER   TO    THE    SAINTS.  203 

ing  to  come  presumptuously  and  confidently  into  the  presence 
of  the  great  God  ;  and  feeling  that  the  blessed  Virgin  and  St. 
Peter  having  been,  like  himself,  once  on  earth,  and  living 
human  lives,  and  knowing  human  infirmities,  would  have  a 
sympathy  and  compassion — a  sort  of  fellow-feeling  for  him — 
he  could  go  to  them  more  comfortably,  and  with  more  confi- 
dence than  he  could  go  into  the  presence  of.  the  great  God. 
He  said  that  he  feared  God,  but  that  he  had  confidence  in  the 
blessed  Mary  and  St.  Peter — that  there  was  something  in  his 
heart — a  feeling  which  he  could  not  well  explain — which  led 
him  to  this  practice,  and  which  was  met  and  satisfied  by  it ;  it 
seemed,  so  to  speak,  natural ;  more  natural  to  go  to  them  than 
to  God,  and  they  would  intercede  for  him  and  help  him. 

I  said,  in  answer  to  this,  that  there  were  many  wants, 
desires,  and  yearnings  in  our  nature  that  our  religion  ought 
to  answer  and  satisfy.  And  that  it  always  seemed  to  me  as  a 
strong  internal  evidence  for  Christianity  that  it  recognized 
and  satisfied  these  cravings  of  the  soul  or  inner  nature  of  the 
man;  that  it  appeared  to  me  as  if  the  feeling  he  had  expressed, 
namely,  an  expectation  of  sympathy  and  help  from  the  saints, 
as  being  of  the  same  nature  with  himself,  instead  of  from  one 
so  infinitely  removed  above  and  beyond  him,  as  was  God 
himself,  was  a  feeling  of  this  very  kind — a  want  or  yearning 
that  seems  natural  to  us,  and  seems  to  require  something  in 
true  religion  to  meet  and  satisfy  it.  I  then  remarked,  that 
among  the  theological  systems  of  the  ancient  heathens  of 
Greece  and  Rome,  this  want  was  met  and  satisfied,  in  a  way, 
by  the  enrollment  of  their  great  or  useful  men  among  the 
demigods,  as  Esculapius,  Romulus,  Bacchus,  and  a  thousand 
others.  It  was  supposed  that  the  Dli  Majores,  the  great 
gods,  as  Jupiter,  etc.,  were  too  much  above  and  beyond  the 
reach  of  thought,  or  interest,,  or  sympathy  for  mortals ;  and 
therefore,  men  had  recourse  to  the  Dii  Minores,  or  demi-gods, 
who  had  once  been  men  on  earth  hke  themselves ;  and  who 
could  be  supposed  capable  of  the  requisite  amount  of  sympa- 
thy for  them  ;  and  who,  therefore,  could  and  would  stand 


204  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

between  tliein  and  the  great  gods,  and  become  tbeir  mediators 
and  intercessors. 

My  friend  bere  broke  in  with  a  remark,  as  natural  as  it  was 
true,  namely,  that  this  was  precisely  tbe  same  as  the  practice 
of  tbe  Church  of  Rome.  He  said  it  was  wonderful  how 
heathens,  as  they  were  without  any  light  or  teaching  from  the 
Church,  yet  living  before  the  Church  itself  was  founded,  had 
been  able  to  see  this  truth,  and  to  imitate  it  beforehand.  It 
seemed  to  him  that  there  must  have  been  some  glimpses  of 
true  religion  among  them.  The  Jews  had  their  sacrifices  of 
blood,  going  before  the  sacrifice  of  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ. 
And  they  had  the  supper  of  the  Passover  going  before  the 
blessed  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  But  they  had  an 
express  command  and  revelation  for  these,  while  the  heathens 
of  Greece  and  Rome,  who  had  no  such  command  or  revela- 
tion, had  their  demi-gods  to  intercede  for  them  with  the  great 
gods,  long  before  the  church  had  canonized  the  saints  in  glory 
to  be  our  intercessors,  our  mediators  of  intercession  with  God. 
He  asked  me  whether  I  could  account  for  this. 

I  was  not  a  little  amused  at  the  mixture  of  truth  and  error 
exhibited  in  these  remarks  ;  and  could  not  fail  being  impressed 
with  the  simplicity  with  which  they  were  made.  I  said  with 
as  much  kindness  and  delicacy  as  possible,  when  about  to 
utter  truths  that  were  not  likely  to  be  acceptable,  that  the 
feeling  of  a  certain  want,  or  desire,  or  yearning,  in  our  inner 
nature  to  which  he  had  before  adverted,  was  felt,  naturally 
felt,  among  the  heathens  as  much  as  among  Christians  ;  and 
that  they  met,  or  tried  to  meet,  and  satisfy  this  feeling  in 
very  much  the  same  way,  at  leai^  in  ways  suitable  to  and  con- 
sistent with  their  respective  systems.  The  heathens  selected 
a  number  of  the  greatest,  best,  and  most  useful  men,  and  en- 
rolled them  among  the  demi-gods,  and  regarded  them  as  their 
mediators  of  intercession.  The  Church  of  Rome  also  selected 
those  who  were  the  most  remarkable  among  her  members  for 
rehgion,  or  zeal,  or  usefulness,  and  canonized  them,  placing 
them  in  the  calendar  of  the  saints,  and  having  recourse  to 
them  as  mediators  of  intercession.     The  two  svstems  seemed 


PRATER   TO    THE    SAINTS.  205 

one  and  tlie  same  in  principle.  They  were  similar  attempts  to 
supply  the  yearnings  and  cravings  of  nature,  to  wliicli  we  had 
already  adverted.  But,  I  added,  that  I  could  not  consider 
them  as  two  different  systems,  but  only  as  one  and  the  same, 
regarding  one  as  a  continuation  of  the  other  ; — that  however 
hard  it  might  seem  to  bear  upon  the  Church  of  Rome,  yet  I 
felt  that  the  system  of  that  Church  was  only  a  continuation  of 
the  heathen  system — that,  instead  of  meeting  the  wants  of  the 
soul  as  revealed  Christianity  meets  it,  she  permitted  the  old 
system  of  the  heathens  to  continue;  transferring  to  the  saints 
the  worship  previously  paid  to  the  demi-gods,  and  substituting 
Peter,  and  Paul,  and  Catherine,  and  Mary,  for  a  Romulus,  or 
a  Mercury,  or  a  Minerva,  or  a  Juno. 

I  here  took  the  opportunity  of  stating  to  my  companion, 
who  I  knew  loved  the  broad,  and  plain,  and  satisfying  truths 
of  the  Gospel,  that  revelation  had  recognized  that  evident  and 
pal^^able  feeling  of  our  inner  nature,  to  Avhich  we  had  been 
referring — and  had  answered  it  in  the  fullest  and  only  satisfy- 
ing way.  Revelation  as  contained  in  the  Holy  Scriptures, 
assumes  that  the  natural  man,  the  unconverted  man,  ordin- 
arily looks  on  God  as  a  God  to  be  feared — that  he  generally 
looks  on  the  attributes  of  greatness,  omnipotence,  justice,  holi- 
ness the  attributes  that  invest  Ilim  with  that  which  makes 
Him  to  be  feared  rather  than  loved.  Revelation  then  describes 
God  as  loving  the  world,  so  loving  it  as  to  give  his  Son  for  it, 
and  then  describes  that  Son  as  all  gentleness,  kindness,  com- 
passion, love,  thus  representing  God  to  us  in  the  opposite 
aspect,  investing  Him  with  all  those  characteristics,  which 
make  Ilim  to  be  loved  rather  than  feared.  Revelation  thus 
meets  the  inner  craving,  to  which  we  have  adverted,  by  show- 
ing God  in  a  new  and  more  accessible  light,  and  then  places 
before  us  that  grand  truth  that  in  the  Son  of  God,  in  Him 
who  has  loved  us  and  given  himself  for  us,  in  Him  who  has 
died  the  death,  even  the  death  of  the  cross  for  us,  in  Him  who 
became  man,  and  lived,  and  suffered,  and  died  as  man  in  our 
stead  and  on  our  behalf,  in  Him  we  have  a  Mediator — both  a 
Mediator  of  redemption,  having  died  for  us,  and  a  mediator  of 


20G  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

intercession  interceding  for  us  ; — and  wlio  as  having  been  a 
man,  bone  of  our  bone,  and  flesh  of  our  flesh,  can  sympathize 
with  us.  Here  is  one  who  has  loved  us  as  none  other  ever 
loved  us — can  sympathize  with  us  as  none  other  can  sympa- 
thize, and  can  etiectually  intercede  for  us  as  none  can  else. 
And  He,  emphatically  He,  Jesus  Ohrist  the  Good  Shepherd, 
as  well  as  the  glorified  Saviour,  is  the  One  who  answers  and 
satisfies  this  want  and  yearning  of  our  nature.  The  language 
of  Revelation  is  strong  and  explicit  on  this  point,  "  There  is 
one  God  and  one  Mediator  between  God  and  man,  the  man 
Christ  Jesus." — 1  Tim.  ii.  5.  Again,  "  Although  there  be  that 
are  called  gods,  as  there  be  gods  many  and  lords  many,  yet 
to  us  there  is  but  one  God,  even  the  Father,  and  one  Lord 
Jesus  Christ." — 1  Cor.  viii.  5.  Again,  "I  write  unto  you  that 
ye  sin  not,  and  if  any  man  sin,  we  have  an  advocate  with  the 
Father,  Jesus  Christ  the  righteous." — John.  ii.  2.  This  is  the 
unvarying  language  of  the  Holy  Scriptures.  And  it  has  been 
the  sin  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  that  while  she  sees  and  recog- 
nizes the  want,  and  desire,  and  yearning  of  the  soul  for  some 
mediator  to  intercede  with  God,  she  has  not  directed  her 
children  to  Him  whom  Revelation  has  revealed,  but  has 
allowed  the  old  mythological  system  of  the  heathens  to  con- 
tinue. Instead  of  uprooting  that  system,  and  proclaiming  the 
truth  of  Revelation,  she  has  continued  and  consecrated  the 
system  of  demi-gods,  by  the  canonization  of  saints,  and  point- 
ing to  them  as  our  Mediator  of  intercession. 

My  friend  was  in  no  degree  hurt  or  irritated  by  this.  Our 
conversation  continued  but  a  short  time  longer,  j:)artating  less 
of  controversy,  and  touching  on  truths  common  to  us  both. 
We  parted,  he  remarking  that  although  I  was  the  most  de- 
cided Protestant  he  had  ever  met,  and  had  said  most  against 
his  Church,  yet  he  always  found  that  he  was  able  to  agree  more 
with  me  than  with  any  one  else ;  and  that  he  could  not  ac- 
count for  this,  but  that  such  was  the  fact ; — upon  which  I 
remarked  in  leaving  him,  that  it  arose  from  our  both  being 
really  in  earnest  about  the  salvation  of  souls,  rather  than  the 
exaltation  of  Churches,  and  that  there  were  truths  which  would 


PRAYER   TO    THE    SAINTS.  20*7 

yet  work  their  way  to  his  heart,  as  tliey  had  done  to  mine. 
And  that  I  had  too  much  experience  of  death-beds  not  to 
know  that  those  were  the  truths  that  alone  sustained,  com- 
forted, and  encouraged  the  dying  man.  Jesus  Christ  is  the  all 
and  the  only  one,  and  I  was  sure  that  he  would  himself  yet 
be  brought  sooner  or  later  to  feel  and  know  it. 

I  added,  that  my  parting  word  with  him  should  be,  that 
whenever  he  needed  sympathy  in  heaven — whenever  his  soul 
was  in  need  of  the  comforts  of  sympathy  in  heaven,  he  had 
only  to  remember  Him  who  became  man  in  order,  among 
other  things,  to  manifest  his  capacity  for  sympathizing  with 
us.  He  is  even  now,  while  we  are  speaking  of  Him,  thinking 
of  us,  and  as  "  the  Great  High  Priest  of  our  profession,"  inter- 
ceding for  us.  I  then  opened  my  Bible  and  read — "  Seeing 
then  that  we  have  a  great  high  priest,  that  is  passed  into  the 
heavens,  Jesus  the  Son  of  God,  let  us  hold  fast  our  profession. 
For  we  have  not  an  high  priest  which  can  not  be  touched  with 
the  feeling  of  our  infirmities ;  but  was  in  all  points  tempted 
like  as  we  are,  yet  without  sin.  Let  us  therefore  come  boldly 
unto  the  throne  of  grace,  that  we  may  obtain  mercy,  and  find 
grace  to  help  in  time  of  need.  For  every  high  priest  taken 
from  among  men  is  ordained  for  men  in  things  pertaining  to 
God,  that  he  may  olfer  both  gifts  and  sacrifices  for  sins.  Who 
can  have  compassion  on  the  ignorant,  and  on  them  that  are 
out  of  the  way ;  for  that  he  himself  also  is  compassed  with 
infirmity." — Hebrews  iv.  14-16  ;  v.  1,  2.     And  so  we  parted. 


INVOCATION  OF   SAINTS. 

The  Value  of  Prayer  rightly  offered— The  Litany  to  the  Saints— How  ascertained 
that  all  these  are  Saints  of  God — Whether  in  Heaven,  or  Purgatory,  or  Hell — 
Canonization  by  the  Pope — Canonization,  an  affair  of  Formalities  and  of  Money 
—Expenses  of  Canonization — How  the  True  Saints  can  know  the  Hearts  or  hear 
the  Prayers  of  their  Votaries — Whether  Eoman  Catholics  only  ask  the  Prayers 
of  the  Saints — Confessions  of  Sins  to  the  Saints — Whether  this  Practice  he  en- 
forced in  the  Church  of  Rome,  or  only  recouimended^Essential  before  Absolu- 
tion and  before  Communion. 

Another  conversation  on  the  same  subject  was  carired  on 
in  a  very  different  spirit,  and  with  a  very  different  person.  He 
was  one  well-known  for  his  virulence  and  violence  ao-ainst 
every  thing  connected  with  the  Holy  Scriptures  or  with  Prot- 
estantism. It  was  thought  that  he  was  connected  with  some 
of  the  illegal  societies  that  kept  the  country  in  constant  ex- 
citement and  disturbance,  and  certainly  he  was  a  bold  and 
violent  man.  But  he  had  considerable  influence  among  a  large 
class  of  the  population,  and  was  the  leader  in  all  the  popular 
political  movements  of  the  day  in  his  immediate  neighbor- 
hood. He  was  thus  a  favorite  with  the  priesthood  of  the 
Church  of  Rome,  of  whom  he  was  a  most  zealous  supporter, 
and  by  whom  he  was  constantly  employed  as  a  convenient  in- 
strument for  spreading  agitation  among  the  people. 

This  man  took  a  very  active  part  in  checking  the  circula- 
tion of  the  Scriptures,  and  often  succeeded  in  turning  the  minds 
of  the  people  from  religious  inquiry,  by  entering  on  political 
questions,  and  thus  supplanting  religion  by  politics.  At  this 
jjeriod,  large  numbers  of  the  Roman  Catholics,  sometimes  so 
many  as  twenty  at  a  time,  used  to  meet  together  in  one  of 
their  houses — used  to  open  the  sacred  volume — read  a  chap- 
ter, and  proceed  to  converse  over  its  meaning.    This  system 


INVOCATION    OF    SAINTS.  209 

was  spreading  a  knowledge  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  rapidly 
among  the  people.  A  spirit  of  inquiry  was  growing  and  ex-  . 
tendinar,  and  the  numbers  who  withdrew  from  the  Church  of 
Rome,  showed  to  the  priesthood  that  their  fears  of  the  circu- 
lation of  the  Scriptures  were  not  without  cause.  Counsel 
was  wisely  taken.  This  man  and  two  or  three  others,  alto- 
gether under  the  influence  of  the  priesthood,  made  it  their 
business  to  visit  all  these  little  meetings  for  Scripture  reading, 
and  before  the  sacred  volume  was  opened,  they  procured  some 
newspapers  containing  the  speeches  of  Mr.  O'Connell,  Mr. 
Shell,  and  others  of  the  popular  orators  of  the  day.  At  that 
time,  these  celebrated  men  spoke  once  a  week  at  the  meetings 
of  the  Catholic  Association,  and  dilated  on  the  wrongs  and 
sufferings,  real  or  imaginary,  of  the  Roman  Catholics  of  Ire- 
land. The  reading  of  these  speeches  gradually  took  the  place 
of  reading  the  Scriptures,  and  conversations  on  politics  soon 
were  substituted  for  conversations  on  religion. 

The  fearless,  and  indeed  fierce  manner,  in  which  this  man 
followed  the  example  of  the  priesthood  in  denouncing  the 
persons  who  had  withdrawn  from  the  Church  of  Rome,  led  to 
some  of  them  rather  hastily  accepting  in  ray  name  a  challenge 
from  him  to  defend  the  principles  of  Protestantism.  They 
had  arranged  the  place,  the  hour,  the  subject,  before  I  was 
aware  of  it,  and  though  I  had  an  extreme  repugnance  to  any 
communication  with  this  person,  I  saw  there  was  no  way  of 
escape,  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  people. 

We  met  in  the  house  of  one  of  the  Protestants,  as  he  said 
he  could  not  enter  that  of  a  convert  or  apostate.  The  subject 
was — Prayer  to  saints,  and  there  were  some  thirty  persons 
present. 

I  thought,  from  his  manner,  which  was  very  constrained 
and  nervous,  but  extremely  respectful  to  myself  personally, 
that  he  would  have  been  as  glad  as  myself,  to  have  escaped 
the  meeting. 

I  commenced  by  endeavoring  to  give  a  gentle,  earnest,  and 
solemn  tone  to  the  meeting,  by  a  few  words  on  the  importance 
of  salvation  to  all,  and  on  the  value  and  comfort  of  prayer  to 


210  EVENINGS    WITH   THE    ROMANISTS. 

our  Father,  and  our  God.  I  said  that  the  life  of  a  Christian, 
was  a  Hfe  of  prayer.  When  the  Almighty  revealed  himself 
to  Ananias,  and  would  express  the  conversion  of  Paul,  He 
did  so  in  the  emphatic  words,  "  Behold  he  prayeth  !"  When 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  would  exhort  his  followers,  it  was  in 
the  simple  words,  "Watch  unto  prayer;"  and  when  his 
apostle  desired  to  see  his  disciples  walking  in  the  faith,  he 
does  so  in  the  expressive  words,  "Pray  without  ceasing." 
The  breath  of  the  spiritual  life  is  prayer,  and  just  as  the  Le- 
vitical  priest  within  the  holy  place,  offered  his  incense  till  its 
perfumed  vapor  filled  the  sanctuary,  above,  beneath,  around, 
so  as  that  the  very  atmosphere  he  breathed,  was  an  atmos- 
phere of  incense,  so  the  child  of  God,  the  member  of  the 
"  holy  priesthood  to  offer  up  spiritual  sacrifices,  acceptable  to 
God,  by  Jesus  Christ,"  1  Peter  ii.  5,  is  to  sustain  his  spiritual 
life,  breathing  that  which  was  typified  by  incense — breathing 
the  atmosphere  of  prayer.  I  was  very  desirous  to  impress 
this  spirit  on  all  present,  before  our  strife  should  commence. 
I  said,  that  the  soul  that  has  lived  in  prayer,  will  need  no  ar- 
guments from  me  to  induce  to  high  thoughts  of  the  sweet- 
ness, the  comfort,  the  happiness  of  prayer.  I  added,  that  the 
more  we  value  it,  and  the  more  important  we  feel  it,  in  the 
very  same  degree  is  it  important  that  we  should  pray  aright, 
and  especially  that  we  should  pray  to  Him  "  who  heareth 
prayer," — who  hath  commanded  us  to  pray,  and  who,  in  ask- 
ing for  our  prayers,  declares  himself  a  "jealous  God,  who 
will  not  give  his  glory  to  another."  Our  great  principle  is 
that  prayer  is  one  great  element  of  that  worship  that  belongs 
to  God— that  which  both  nature  and  revelation  alike  demand, 
as  the  homage  of  the  creature  to  his  Creator ;  and  as  such, 
it  should  be  rendered  to  the  Creator  alone — not  to  the 
creature,  but  to  the  Creator  alone.  The  transition  from  this 
to  our  subject  was  easy. 

In  the  Church  of  Rome,  a  different  principle  has  been 
adopted.  She  has  recommended  the  offering  of  prayer,  not 
to  the  Creator  alone  but  to  the  creature  also — not  to  God 
alone,  but  also  to  the  angelic  creation,  and  to  the  redeemed 


INVOCATION    OF    SAINTS.  211 

in  heaven — to  the  angels  and  the  saints  above.  And  I  sug- 
gested that  it  would  be  a  convenient  mode  of  commencement 
if  our  friend  would  begin,  by  repeating  the  Litany  to  the 
saints.  I  said  there  was  no  necessity  to  repeat  the  whole  ;  if 
he  becran  with  St.  Lawrence  and  St.  Vincent  it  would  be 
enough. 

The  suggestion  was  acceptable  to  all,  and  he  began,  and 
most  of  the  Roman  Catholics  present  repeated  it  aloud  with 
him. 

St.  Lawrence,  pray  for  us. 

St.  Vincent,  pray  for  us. 

St.  Fabian  and  St.  Sebastian,  pray  for  us. 

St.  John  and  St.  Paul,  pray  for  us. 

St.  Cosmos  and  St.  Damian,  pray  for  us. 

St.  Gervase  and  St.  Protase,  pray  for  us. 

All  ye  Holy  Martyrs,  pray  for  us. 

St.  Sylvester,  pray  for  us. 

St.  Gregory,  pray  for  us. 

St.  Ambrose,  pray  for  us. 

St.  Augustine,  pray  for  us. 

St.  Jerome,  pray  for  us. 

St.  Martin,  pray  for  us. 

St.  Nicholas,  pray  for  us. 

All  ye  Holy  Bishops  and  Confessors,  pray  for  ua. 

All  ye  Holy  Doctors,  pray  for  us. 

St.  Antliony,  pray  for  us. 

St.  Benedict,  pray  for  us. 

St.  Bernard,  pray  for  us. 

St.  Dominick,  p*ray  for  us. 

St.  Francis,  pray  for  us. 

All  ye  Holy  Priests  and  Levites,  pray  for  us. 

All  ye  Holy  Monks  and  Hermits,  pray  for  us. 

St.  Mary  Magdalen,  pray  for  us. 

St.  Agatha,  pray  for  us. 

St.  Lucy,  pray  for  us. 

St.  Cecilia,  pray  for  us. 

St.  Catherine,  pray  for  us. 


212  EVENINGS    WITH   THE   ROMANISTS. 

St.  Anastasia,  pray  for  us. 

All  ye  Holy  Virgins  and  Widows,  pray  for  us. 

All  ye  Saints  of  God,  make  intercession  for  us. 

The  repeating  of  this  Litany  had  a  striking  eflfect  on  the  orig- 
inal Protestants  present,  who  had  never  before  heard  it.  They 
were  for  the  most  part  earnest  and  religious  men,  who  could 
not  associate  prayer  in  their  minds  with  any  one  but  God. 
They  felt  very  fully  that  there  was  "  one  God,  and  one  Mediator 
between  God  and  man,  the  man  Christ  Jesus." — 1  Tim.  ii.  5. 
They  knew  well  the  words  "  If  any  man  sin,  we  have  an  Ad- 
vocate with  the  Father,  Jesus  Christ  the  righteous." — 1  John 
ii.  2.  And  they  believed  him  "  able  to  save  to  the  uttermost 
all  that  come  unto  God  by  Him,  seeing  He  ever  liveth  to 
make  intercession  for  them." — Heb.  vii.  25.  They  were  there- 
fore not  a  little  startled  at  a  series  of  Mediators  and  Interces- 
sors, whose  very  names  they  had  never  heard.  They  showed 
this  in  their  manner. 

I  then  remarked,  amid  the  most  profound  attention,  that 
our  friend  had  recited  a  portion  of  the  Litany,  praying  to  a 
number  of  persons  to  pray  for  us ;  there  were  the  names  of 
men  and  the  names  of  women — the  names  of  persons  of 
whom  some  of  us  had  never  heard,  and  of  whom  the  most 
informed  among  us  knew  but  little.  Now  I  wished  to  ask 
how  our  friend  knew  that  these  persons  were  saints  in  heaven  ? 
We  all  felt  of  course,  that  if  these  persons  are  not  saints  in 
heaven,  but  devils  in  hell,  or  disembodied  spirits  any  where 
else,  it  would  be  idolatrous  to  pray  to  them  at  all.  And  there- 
fore I  ask  how  he  Jcnoivs  that  they  are'  really  saints  in 
Heaven  ? 

He  said  at  once,  with  confidence,  that  they  were  persons 
who  lived  in  the  faith  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  died  in  the  com- 
munion of  the  only  true  Church — the  Church  of  Rome — that 
having  lived  holy  lives,  and  done  good  works,  and  wrought 
miracles  on  earth,  they  are  now  rewarded  by  being  translated 
into  heaven.  And  being  dear  to  God  on  account  of  their  re- 
ligion, their  prayers  and  intercessions  for  us  are  eflPectual. 


INVOCATION    OF    SAINTS.  213 

And  tberefore  we  pray  to  them  in  order  to  secure  their  inter- 
est and  intercession  with  God  in  our  favor. 

I  reminded  him  that  tliis  was  not  an  answer  to  my  ques- 
tion— that  I  had  asked,  how  he  knew  that  all  these  persons 
were  saints  in  Heaven  ?  The  question  was  important,  be- 
cause it  was  held  in  the  Church  of  Rome  that  when  persons 
die,  the  wicked  are  cast  into  hell,  and  the  righteous  are  sent 
to  purgatory.  Now  if  the  righteous  are  sent  to  purgatory  un- 
til they  have  suffered  all  that  w%as  due  to  their  sins,  how  does 
our  friend  know  that  these  persons  are  yet  out  of  Purgatory 
'or  are  yet  in  heaven? 

This  question  seemed  greatly  to  interest,  and  indeed  to 
amuse  our  whole  party,  except  our  friend  who  was  called  to 
answer  it.  He  was  perfectly  perplexed,  but  after  some  time 
he  said  that  the  saints  never  went  to  Purgatory — that  they 
bad  merit  enough,  and  sometimes  more  than  enough  for  their 
own  salvation,  and  to  atone  for  all  their  sins,  and  that  there- 
fore it  was  their  privilege,  like  the  martyrs,  to  go  at  once  to 
heaven  when  they  die. 

Still,  I  answered,  my  question  remains,  namely  how  is  it 
known  that  these  persons  whose  names  are  in  the  litany,  are 
really  saints  ?  What  authority  do  you  give  me  for  the  fact  ? 
You  tell  me  that  these  persons  are  saints.  I  ask — bow  do 
you  know  that  ?  You  tell  me  also  that  it  is  the  privilege  of 
saints  to  go  at  once  to  heaven,  without  staying  in  Purgatory,  I 
ask — how  do  you  know  that  ?  How  has  it  been  ascertained, 
that  all  these  persons  are  now  in  heaven  ?  The  importance 
of  this  inquiry  will  be  freely  admitted,  when  it  is  considered 
that  it  must  be  confessed  by  all  parties  to  be  "  a  fond  and  vain 
thing  "  to  pray  to  those  who  are  not  saints — to  pray  to  those 
who  are  not  in  heaven.  And,  tlierefore,  we  ask — How  has  it 
been  ascertained  that  all  these  persons  are  really  saints  ? 
How  has  it  been  ascertained  that  all  these  persons  are  now  in 
heaven  ?  To  answer  this  inquiry  by  saying — "  They  lived  holy 
lives  on  earth,  and,  therefore,  are  now  holy  saints  in  heaven" 
is  not  sufficient ;  for  we  are  liable  to  be  deceived.  We  can 
only  look  to  "  the  outward  appearance  ;  the  Lord  lookcth  to 


214  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

the  heart."  We  know  that  "  the  heart  is  deceitful  above  al! 
things,  and  desperately  wicked :  Who  can  know  it  ?"  We 
know  that  it  is  God  only  can  "  search  the  heart  and  try  the 
reins."  And,  therefore,  we  feel,  that  it  is  He  alone  can  know 
who  are  His  saints.  "  The  Lord  knoweth  them  that  are  His." 
There  is  so  much  deception,  so  much  false  profession,  so  much 
hypocrisy  in  the  world,  that,  though  we  may  hope  and  Avish, 
we  yet  can  never  assuredly  know,  who  are  the  saints  of  God. 
It  may  be  found,  hereafter,  that  some  shall  have  a  throne  in 
heaven  whom  we  had  believed  to  be  in  hell ;  and  that  some 
shall  mourn  in  hell  whom  we  had  beheved  to  be  in  heaven. 
We  ask,  then — How  has  it  been  ascertained,  that  Gervase  and 
Protase — that  Francis  and  Dominic — that  all  these  monks  and 
hermits — are  really  saints  in  Heaven  ?  How  has  it  been  as- 
certained that  Agatha  and  Lucy — that  Cecilia  and  Catherine — 
that  all  these  virgins  and  widows — (the  married  women  are  all 
left  out) — are  really  saints  in  Heaven  ?  We  have  strong  and 
well-grounded  suspicions,  that  many  of  these  may  never  have 
entered  heaven.  We  have  strong  and  well-grounded  suspic- 
ions that  St.  Francis,  who  was  one  of  the  most  awfully-blas- 
pheming monks  that  ever  trod  the  chambers  of  a  monastery, 
may  never  have  entered  heaven.  We  have  strong  and  well- 
grounded  suspicions  that  St.  Dominic,  who  founded  that  hate- 
ful institution,  which  has  been  "  drunk  with  the  blood  of  the 
saint  and  martyrs  of  Jesus" — the  Inquisition — may  possibly  be 
in  a  worse  region  than  heaven.  We  may  well  be  allowed  to 
doubt  whether  Archbishop  Lawrence,  who  shook  Ireland  with 
rebellion — or  whether  Thomas  a  Beckct,  who  disturbed  Eng- 
land by  faction — or  whether  Garnet,  who  hatched  the  Gun- 
powder Treason — we  may  well  be  allowed  to  doubt  whether 
these  men  really  are  saints  !  And  when  we  read  the  roll  of 
the  canonized  saints  of  Rome — when  we  read  there  the  names 
of  men  like  these — men,  whom  all  history  and  their  own  writ- 
ings prove  to  have  been  blasphemers,  or  persecutors,  or  reb- 
els, or  traitors — we  think  we  have  some  cause  to  suspect,  that 
if  we  invoke,  and  confess,  and  pray  to  these  men,  we  may 


INVOCATION    OF    SAINTS.  215 

possibly,  be  invoking  and  confessing  and  praying  lO  damned 
souls  in  hell,  instead  of  sainted  spirits  in  heaven. 

This  is  a  difBculty  on  the  veiy  threshold  of  this  practice. 
The  Church  of  Rome  herself  has  recognized  the  reasonable- 
ness of  this  difficulty  on  our  parts.  It  is,  therefore,  that  in  or- 
der to  remove  all  doubts  and  suspicions  upon  the  subject,  it 
has  been  arranged  in  that  Church,  that  the  Pope  or  Bishop  of 
Rome  shall  select  those  persons,  Avho  in  the  judgment  of  his 
court  shall  be  regarded  as  the  saints  of  God.  He  then  canon- 
izes  those  persons ;  that  is,  he  enrolls  their  names  in  the  scroll 
of  the  saints  of  heaven.  And  then,  being  thus  canonized  by 
him,  all  the  members  of  the  Church  of  Rome  are  to  invoke 
them,  and  confess  to  them,  and  pray  to  them.  If  he  refuses 
to  canonize  the  candidate,  then  no  man  is  to  invoke  or  con- 
fess or  pray  to  him  ;  but  if  he  determines  to  canonize  the  can- 
didate, then  every  man  is  to  invoke  and  confess  and  pray  to 
him.  This  is  the  arrangement  adopted  in  that  Church,  in  or- 
der to  obviate  the  doubts  and  suspicions  we  might  be  supposed 
to  entertain.  If  we  doubt  that  the  blaspheming  Francis  is  a 
saint,  we  are  answered  that  the  Pope  has  canonized  him ;  and 
then  our  doubt  is  to  vanish  away,  as  smoke  before  the  wind  ! 
If  we  suspect  that  the  persecuting  Dominic  is  not  a  saint,  we 
are  answered  that  the  Pope  has  canonized  him;  and  then  our 
suspicion  must  fade  away,  like  darkness  before  the  sun  !  Thus 
all  depends,  according  to  this,  upon  the  judgment  of  the 
Bishop  of  Rome — of  a  man  like  ourselves — of  a  man,  who  can 
not  see  into  heaven  one  hair's  breadth  further  than  ourselves ; 
and  we  are  called  on  to  peril  our  soul's  salvation  in  this  matter 
on  the  mere  judgment  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome  ! 

His  reply  to  this  was  given  in  a  sullen  and  dogged  spirit. 
It  was  simply,  that  His  hoHness  the  Pope,  the  successor  of  St. 
Peter,  the  rock  on  which  the  true  Church  was  built,  had  canon- 
ized them — had  declared  them  to  be  saints  !     He  said  no  more. 

And  so,  said  I,  you  have  nothing  for  it  but  the  will  of  the 
Pope  ?  Their  names  are  not  in  the  Holy  Scriptures ;  and, 
therefore,  you  have  not  the  word  of  God,  but  only  the  word 
of  the  Pope — the  word  of  a  mortal  man  for  it ! 


216  EVENINGS    WITH    TilE    ROMANISTS. 

He  seemed  very  impatient  and  irritated  at  this  ;  stating,  in 
a  warm  manner,  that  the  Pope  never  canonized  a  saint  with- 
out having  good  reasons  for  doing  so — that  every  possible 
means  were  taken  to  prevent  any  mistake — that  every  inquiry 
was  made — that  every  thing  was  done  slowly  and  surely,  and 
year  by  year — that  time  and  opportunity  were  fully  given  for 
every  inquiry,  every  doubt,  and  every  objection — that  the  act 
of  canonization  was  never  completed  without  long  delay,  in 
which  it  was  proved  that  there  was  no  error  in  the  writings  of 
the  person  to  be  canonized — that,  either  in  his  life  or  after  his 
death,  miracles  were  known  to  be  wrouglit  by  him — that  all 
this  was  tried  and  tested  in  the  most  searching  manner — that 
so  severe  was  the  test  that  an  official  was  appointed,  com- 
monly called  "the  Devil's  Attornej","  whose  special  business  it 
was  to  oppose  every  canonization,  and  to  object  to  all  the 
proofs  of  orthodoxy,  and  of  sanctity,  and  of  miracles — and 
that,  finally,  it  was  not  till  all  was  satisfactorily  proved,  that 
the  saint  was  canonized  by  the  Pope. 

In  reply  to  all  this,  I  said,  there  was  another  view  to  be 
taken  of  this  process  of  canonization,  that  very  much  altered 
its  character.  The  fees — the  legalized  fees — of  the  process  of 
canonization  exceed  some  thousands  of  pounds !  These  fees 
are  to  be  paid  to  certain  officials  in  whose  hands  the  affair 
mainly  rests ;  and  it  is  not  likely — it  is  not  in  human  nature — 
that  they  would  throw  any  very  serious  impediments,  beyond 
make-belief  ones,  in  the  way  of  their  own  receipt  of  these  fees, 
which  usually  run  to  double  the  legal  amount,  an  enormous 
sum  in  so  poor  a  j^lace  as  Rome  ;  and,  especially,  as  sometimes 
the  expenses  of  the  process  itself,  Avhich  are  enormous,  all  come 
into  the  possession  of  the  officials  and  retainers  of  the  Roman 
courts.  [The  work,  "  Le  Capclle  Pontijicie^''  etc.,  is  the  ru- 
bric, so  to  speak,  for  all  the  great  ceremonies  in  which  the 
Pope  takes  a  part.  It  was  said  to  have  been  written  by  the 
late  Pope  Gregory  XVI.  It  was  published  in  1841,  under  the 
name  of  his  chamberlain  and  favorite,  Moroni.  In  this  work 
it  is  stated  that  the  canonization  of  St.  Bernardine  of  Sienna 
cost  25,000  ducats  of  gold — that  that  of  St.  Bonaventure  cost 


INVOCATION    OF    SAINTS.  2l7 

27,000  ducats  of  gold — tliat  that  of  St.  Francis  de  Paola  cost 
70,000  scudi — and  that  of  St.  Francis  of  Sales  31,900  scudi,  av- 
eraging from  £10,000  to  £12,000  each  !  a  prodigious  sum  in 
those  days.  It  also  states,  that  the  law  has  legalized  such 
fees  ;  as,  to  the  prelate  of  the  court,  150  scudi — to  the  writ- 
ers' office,  175  scudi — to  the  office  of  the  seal,  87  scudi — to 
tlie  register,  176  scudi — to  the  office  of  dispatch,  60  scudi — to 
the  bank  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  849  scudi,  etc.,  etc.  The  scudo 
is  worth  about  four  shillings  ;  and  it  may  well  be  believed  that 
the  officials  who  receive  the  fees  on  completing  the  canoniz- 
ation, will  not  throw  unnecessary  impediments  in  the  way. 
The  prospect  of  a  canonization — a  new  saint — is  a  perfect 
"  God-send"  among  them ;  it  is  a  httle  fortune  to  some  of 
them.]  It  was  customary  with  some  kings  and  princes  who 
knew  this,  as  Charles  III.  of  Spain,  to  propose  a  saint  to  be 
canonized  almost  every  year ;  not  that  he  cared  about  the 
saint,  but  that  he  might  have  a  handsome  excuse  for  paying  a 
large  sum  of  money — a  gentlemanly  bribe — every  year  to  the 
officials  of  the  papal  court,  in  order  to  maintain  his  influence 
in  that  quarter.  He  knew  they  would  not  quarrel  with  one 
who  brought  them  so  much  wealth.  This  was  common 
enough  in  past  times.  And  besides  this,  a  large  number  of 
saints  have  been  canonized  through  the  rivalry  of  the  monas- 
tic orders,  as  the  Dominicans,  and  Franciscans,  and  Jesuits. 
If  the  member  of  one  order  was  canonized,  then,  in  a  spirit  of 
rivalry,  the  other  orders  would  propose  the  canonization  of 
one  of  their  number.  And  all  this  was  encouraged  by  the  of- 
ficials of  the  court,  for,  whether  the  saint  to  be  canonized  was 
Dominican,  or  Franciscan,  or  Jesuit,  the  officials  were  always 
leady  to  receive  the  fees ;  and,  as  might  be  expected  from 
poor  human  nature,  they  would  not  be  likely  to  oppose  the 
completion  of  a  canonization  which  brought  them  so  much 
wealth.  The  money  was  good  money  from  whatever  order  it 
came.  This  was  a  point  so  well  undei'stood,  that  then,  as  now, 
all  persons  felt  that  the  first  thing  to  be  done,  was  to  collect 
the  adequate  funds,  as  when  they  are  prepared,  there  is  no 
further  difficulty  of  a  serious  nature  to  canonization.     But  the 

10 


218  EVENINaS    WITH    THE   ROMANISTS. 

truth  is,  that  of  late  years  very  few  canouizations  take  place  ; 
not  more,  I  believe,  than  four  or  five  for  the  last  fifty  years ; 
and  the  reason  is,  that  since  the  French  Revolution  and  the 
wars  of  Napoleon,  the  immense  estates  of  the  monastic  orders 
were  confiscated,  and  the  consequence  is,  that  they  have  not 
so  much  to  spare  in  canonizing  new  saints.  At  present  they 
are  ohhsed  to  send  all  over  the  world  to  collect  subscriptions 
before  they  can  proceed.  It  is  from  beginning  to  end  an  af- 
fair of  money,  and  not  of  sanctity.* 

He  listened  to  this  with  the  greatest  interest,  and  seemed 
almost  to  forget  the  argument'  he  had  in  hand.  It  appeared 
as  if  he  was  caught  by  the  idea  of  the  pecuniary  corruptions 
insinuated  against  the  court  of  Rome,  for  he  was  a  great  re- 
former in  his  way  among  the  pohticians  of  his  neighborhood, 
and  had  constantly  denounced  in  public  the  ofiicials  of  the 
English  Government,  for  their  alleged  bribery  and  corruption ; 
it  was  with  him  a  favorite  subject  in  his  speeches.  By  an  ac- 
cident I  had  used  almost  the  very  words  he  had  himself  fre- 
quently employed  on  such  occasions ;  and  he  seemed  to  be 
quite  taken  with  the  subject,  and  to  be  thinking  in  his  own 
mind  that  that  was  just  the  case  of  corruption  he  should  like 
to  expose. 

He  said  nothing  whea  I  paused,  so  after  a  moment,  I  con- 
tinued, and  said,  that  the  process  of  canonization  was  carried 
on  throuo-h  little  comfortable  commissions  of  cardinals,  and 
other  officials — that  certain  notices  were  posted  on  the 
churches,  to  notify  that  it  was  proposed  to  prove  of  some  can- 
didate for  canonization  that  there  was  no  error  in  all  his  writ- 
ings— that  he  had  possessed  all  the  moral  virtues — that  he 
had  possessed  all  the  theological  virtues — that  he  had  pos- 
sessed them  in  a  heroical  degree — that  he  wrought  miracles 
either  in  his  life  or  in  his  death — and  that  these  several  asser- 
tions would  be  maintained  and  proved  in  the  church  of  some 

*  On  the  suppression  of  the  monastic  establishments  in  Naples,  Na- 
poleon Bonaparte  took  possession  of  their  property,  and  realized  no  less 
than  twenty-five  millions  of  pounds  sterling  by  the  sale  1  so  enormous 
had  their  wealth  become. 


INVOCATION    OF    SAINTS.  ,  219 

convent  at  certaiu  intervals  of  time.  It  will  readily  be  be- 
lieved that  no  one  takes  any  trouble  about  it,  except  those 
specially  interested.  Sometimes  the  church  is  far  away  ;  some- 
times the  proposed  saint  is  a  person  whose  name  no  one  but 
the  clergy  remember.  It  is  no  man's  interest  and  no  man's 
business  to  oppose  these  assertions.  Comfortable  little  com- 
missions or  committees  of  cardinals  and  officials  meet  and  settle 
the  whole,  and  receive  the  fees  ;  and  all  that  the  public  then 
know  is,  that  the  Pope  is  to  canonize  the  saint.  A  system  like 
this  can  give  us  no  confidence  in  the  canonization  of  these  saints. 
And,  therefore,  my  question  still  remains — How  do  you  know 
that  these  persons  to  whom  you  pray,  and  whose  names  were 
repeated  in  the  litany,  are  really  saints  in  Heaven.  You  have 
nothing  for  it  but  the  word  of  the  Pope  who  canonized  the  saint. 
And  we  have  seen  that  none  of  us  can  depend  much  upon  that. 

He  answered  this  rather  rudely,  saying,  that  he  did  not  be- 
lieve it— that  though  he  knew  very  well  that  every  where  men 
were  ready  to  fleece  the  poor  out  of  their  money,  and  then  to 
job  it  among  themselves — that  though  it  was  not  improbable 
that  there  were  some  such  persons  at  Rome,  as  every  where 
else,  yet  he  did  not  believe  a  word  I  had  stated  respecting  the 
canonization  of  the  saints.  He  was  certain  that  the  Pope, 
who  was  an  holy  man,  and  the  cardinals,  who  were  holy  men, 
and  the  bishops,  who  were  holy  men,  could  not  have  taken 
part  in  any  thing  like  that  which  I  had  described.  Jesus 
Christ  had  promised  never  to  leave  his  Church,  and  he  would 
never  desert  the  Pope,  and  the  cardinals,  and  the  bishops  on 
such  an  occasion.  He  would  not  let  them  be  carried  away), 
by  a  love  of  money,  he  would  not  let  them  be  deceived  by- 
their  officials.  He  therefore  could  not  believe  my  statements, 
and  was  sure  that  whenever  the  Pope  canonized  the  saint,  then 
he  or  she  was  a  saint,  and  it  was  lawful  to  pray  to  thera. 

It  was  very  perceptible  that  the  persons  present  were  not 
satisfied  with  this  sort  of  answer  ;  and  as  my  object  was  prin- 
cipally so  to  argue  as  to  influence  them,  without  any  expecta- 
tion of  making  an  impression  on  the  mind  of  my  opponent,  I 
repeated  my  question,  and  added,  addressing  those  present, 


220  EVEJflNGS    WITH   THE   ROMANISTS, 

that  they  all  had  heard  my  inquiry — how  it  was  ascertained 
that  these  persons  are  saints  in  Heaven  ?  and  that  they  also 
had  heard  his  answer,  namely,  that  they  had  the  word  of  the 
Pope  for  it,  and  nothing  more. 

He  here  interrupted  me,  and  said  that  at  all  events  I  could 
not  deny  that  some  of  them  were  saints.  Whatever  might  be 
said  about  St.  Dominic,  or  St.  Francis,  or  the  others ;  yet  cer 
tainly,  the  Blessed  Virgin  Mary,  and  Mary  Magdalen,  and  St. 
Peter,  and  all  the  apostles  were  saints.  It  was  impossible  for 
me  to  deny  that,  and  why  may  we  not  pray  to  them  ? 

I  felt  at  this  moment  very  thankful  at  the  course  the  con- 
versation was  taking,  as  I  thought  enough  had  been  said  on 
the  foregoing  point,  and  that  it  was  time  to  turn  to  another, 
and  he  now  gave  it  precisely  the  direction  in  which  I  had 
wished  to  turn  it.  I  therefore  said  that  I  was  glad  to  be  able 
to  agree  with  him  so  far  as  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  Mary  Mag- 
dalen, and  St.  Peter  and  all  the  apostles  were  concerned — 
they  were  undoubtedly  saints.  They  are  described  in  Holy 
Scriptures  as  such,  for  in  the  times  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  all 
Christians,  all  believers,  were  called  "  Saints." 

And  why  then,  he  asked,  may  we  not  pray  to  them  ? 

Because,  I  replied,  they  can  not  hear  our  prayers.  How 
can  they,  who  are  finite  beings  in  heaven,  hear  the  prayers  of 
men  on  earth  ? 

It  is  a  fatal  objection  to  the  practice  of  the  Church  of 
Rome,  that  the  departed  saints  are  finite  beings.  It  is  in  the 
nature  of  things  impossible  that  such  finite  creatures  should 
have  cognizance  of  all  the  prayers  and  all  the  hearts  of  not 
only  one  or  a  few  individuals,  but  of  the  thousands  and  mil- 
lions of  votaries  who  bow  the  knee  to  them.  It  should  be  re- 
membered that  the  confession  of  sin,  and  the  prayer  for  their 
intercession,  are  offered  to  these  saints  in  every  place  through- 
out the  whole  world  where  the  Mass  js  celebrated  ;  that  they 
are  offered  by  every  individual  worshiper  of  that  Church  in 
the  whole  world ;  that  these  confessions  and  invocations  and 
prayers,  are  offered  up  both  in  public  worship  and  in  private 
devotion  ;  that  whether  in  the  wild  forests  of  America,  or  in 


INVOCATION    OF    SAINTS.  221 

the  burning  climate  of  Africa,  or  in  the  sunny  regions 
of  Asia,  or  in  the  civilized  nations  of  Europe — whether 
among  the  negroes,  the  Indians,  the  savage?,  or  the  civilized 
— wherever  there  is  a  member  oi;'  tlie  C':iurch  of  P.oj;e,  those 
confessions  and  invocations  and  prayers  are  made  to  these 
saints,  and  that  too  by  thousands  of  persons  at  the  very 
same  instant  of  time  ;  so  that  it  must  be  absolutely  im- 
possible for  the  saints,  unless  they  are  omnipresent  and  om.- 
ni  sclent,  to  hear  and  know  these  confessions  and  invocations 
and  prayers.  We  feel  that  He  who  is  the  great,  the  immor- 
tal, the  invisible,  the  only  wise  God  "  who  is  about  our  bed, 
and  about  our  path,  and  spieth  out  all  our  ways,"  and  who 
"  searcheth  the  heart,  and  trieth  the  reins,"  and  who  knoweth 
all  the  "  secret  thouofhts  and  intents  of  the  heart,"  inasmuch 
as  "  all  things  are  naked  and  open  before  the  eyes  of  Him  with 
whom  we  have  to  do," — we  feel  that  He  who  is  infinite,  can, 
by  his  omnipresence  and  omniscience,  hear,  and  see,  and  know 
every  prayer  of  every  heart.  But  we  also  feel  that  the  de- 
parted saints,  being  but  finite  creatures,  can  not  possibly  hear 
or  know  the  confessions,  invocations  and  prayers  that  are 
made  to  them  from  so  many  millions  of  hearts,  in  so  varied 
regions  of  the  world,  and  at  the  same  moment  of  time.  And, 
therefore  we  argue  that,  even  if  we  waived  our  former  consid- 
eration— even  supposing  we  were  certified  as  to  the  persons 
who  are  the  saints  in  light — even  supposing  we  had  the 
authority  of  Revelation,  instead  of  the  judgment  of  the  Bishop 
of  Rome,  to  assure  us — the  practice  of  confessing,  and  invok- 
ing, and  praying  to  them  would  still  be  a  vain  invention,  in 
consequence  of  their  inability  to  hear  us. 

I  then  addressed  myself  directly  to  our  friend,  and  said,  I 
would  put  the  question  to  him,  and  ask  him  to  answer  it  be- 
fore all  present — How  it  was  possible  that  the  saints  in  Heaven 
could  hear  the  prayers  that  are  offered  to  them  ? 

All  present  looked  earnestly  for  his  answer.  He  was  fully 
conscious  of  this.  He  was  confused  and  silent  for  some  time. 
He  said,  at  last,  that  he  could  not  tell — that  it  was  not  to  be 


222  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

expected  that  lie  should  be  able  to  answer  such  a  question, 
but,  perhaps,  the  great  God  revealed  it  to  them. 

I  reminded  him  that  that  overthrew  the  whole  notion  on 
which  the  doctrine  of  praying  to  the  saints  was  founded. 
That  doctrine  was,  that  we  ought  not  to  approach  God  di- 
rectly or  at  once — that  as  men  approach  an  earthly  sovereign, 
not  directly  or  at  once,  but  through  his  courtiers  and  favorites, 
that  they  may  convey  and  commend  our  case  to  his  clemency  ; 
so  men  should  approach  God  through  the  saints,  who  aie  his 
courtiers  and  favorites,  and  who  can  convey  our  prayers  and 
commend  our  petitions  to  his  favorable  consideration.  Now, 
this  suggestion  about  God  revealing  your  prayers  to  the  saints 
overthrows  all  this  doctrine ;  for  it  appears  that  these  saints, 
who  are  the  courtiers  and  favorites  of  heaven,  can  not  of 
themselves  hear  your  prayers,  and  therefore,  can  not  of  them- 
selves convey  or  commend  your  case  to  the  clemency  of  God, 
unless  God  shall  first  reveal  your  prayers  to  them.  And  thus, 
the  process  is  this — your  prayers  ascend  first  to  God,  and  then 
God  reveals  them  to  the  saint,  and  then  the  saint  prays  them 
back  again  to  God !  Or  to  make  this  matter  more  plain,  you 
offer  a  prayer  to  the  Virgin  Mary  that  she  may  present  it  to 
God  for  you.  But  she  being  finite,  does  not  hear  your  prayer, 
or  know  you  are  praying  to  her.  Your  suggestion,  then  sup- 
poses that  God  who  has  seen  you  jjraying  and  heard  your 
prayers,  reveals  it  to  the  Vii'gin  Mary,  and  then  she  reveals  it 
back  again  to  God !  And  thus  we  find  it  is  not  the  saints 
that  present  your  prayers  to  God,  but  it  is  God  who  j^resents 
them  to  the  saints,  and  then  they  present  them  back  again  to 
God  !  The  system  is  altogether  unscriptural  and  wrong,  for 
it  makes  God  the  Mediator  between  man  and  the  saints,  while 
it  pretends  to  make  the  saints  mediators  between  God  and 
man.  The  truth  of  Scripture  is — "  Thei'e  is  one  God,  and 
one  Mediator  between  God  and  man,  the  man  Christ  Jesus." 

This  had  an  unmistakable  effect  on  the  parties  present. 
And  as  our  friend  was  perplexed  and  silent,  a  good  deal  of 
conversation  passed  among  those  present,  one  with  another. 
The  result  seemed  to  me  very  satisfactory. 


INVOCATION    OF    SAINTS.  223 

After  a  short  time,  however,  in  which  our  friend  had  a 
pi'ivate  conference  with  a  companion,  he  said,  that  although 
he  might  not  be  able  to  explain  every  difficulty,  yet  he  could 
see  no  harm  in  praying  to  the  saints  to  pray  for  us — that  they 
did  no  more  than  ask  them  as  we  would  ask  our  friends  to 
pray  for  us,  and  that  there  could  be  no  harm  in  this.  Do  you 
not  often  ask  your  friends  to  pray  for  you  ? 

I  reminded  him  that  in  the  "  Confiteor"  they  went  much 
further  than  this,  for  they  confess  their  sins  to  Mary  and  the 
saints,  and  afterward  they  pray  to  Mary  and  the  saints  to  pray 
for  them,  so  that  it  was  clear  they  did  something  more  than 
ask  the  saints  in  the  same  way  as  we  ask  our  friends  to  pray 
for  us.  Is  there,  I  asked,  one  person  among  us  makes  con- 
fession of  all  his  secret  sins  to  his  friends,  and  then  asks  them 
to  i^ray  for  him  ?  And  if  not,  why  say  that  you  do  no  more  to 
the  saints  than  we  do  to  our  friends  ?  ^ 

This  appeal  was  at  once  responded  to  by  all  present,  except 
one  who  had  just  entered  and  had  heard  neither  the  argument 
of  my  opponent  nor  the  answer  I  had  given.  He  was  one 
held  in  very  high  estimation  for  his  religiousness,  being  a 
brother  of  a  confraternity  or  brotherhood  lately  settled  a  few 
miles  distant — a  sort  of  monk  at  a  small  convent.  He  was  a 
tall,  shght  man,  always  dressed  very  like  a  priest,  but  with  a 
coat  whose  skirts  reached  his  heels,  and  he  seemed  a  sly  and 
smooth  and  insidious  man,  with  a  forced  smile  ever  on  his 
lips.  Such  at  least  was  the  impression  he  had  created  among 
the  Protestants  in  the  neighborhood  ;  while  among  the  Roman 
Catholics,  though  with  some  exceptions,  he  was  regarded  as  a 
prodigy  of  learning  as  well  as  a  model  of  piety.  His  manner 
of  entering  was  marked  with  a  courtesy  that  was  almost  serv- 
ile, and  yet  with  a  smile  that  did  not  leave  a  pleasant  impres- 
sion on  my  mind.  Perhaps,  however,  I  had  been  prejudiced 
by  the  reports  which  I  had  previously  heard. 

Our  conference  seemed  drawing  to  a  close,  as  my  opponent 
was  unable  or  indisposed  to  say  much  more.  He  had  begun 
with  an  overweening  confidence,  and  he  felt  that  he  had  failed 
in  carrying  the  feelings  or  opinions  of  his  hearers  with  him. 


224  EVENINGS    V,'IiH    IHE    IIOMANISTS. 

The  converts  from  Rome  whom  he  hoped  to  reclaim,  seemed 
more  confirmed  than  ever.  And  he  therefore  exhibited  a  more 
moderate  and  subdued  manner. 

I  was  about  to  conclude  by  recapitulating  the  arguments 
that  had  passed.  I  reminded  them  that  my  first  question — 
namely,  How  he  knew  that  these  persons  prayed  to  in  the 
Litany  of  the  Saints,  were  really  saints  in  Heaven  ? — was  not 
answered.  And  that  my  second  inquiry — namely,  How  do 
the  saints  in  Heaven  hear  the  prayers  and  know  the  hearts  of 
all  their  worshipers  in  all  parts  of  the  world  ? — was  also  un- 
explained. And  I  was  going  on  with  some  general  objections 
to  the  practice  of  praying  to  Mary  and  to  the  saints,  as  dis- 
honoring to  the  mediation  and  intercession  of  Jesus  Christ, 
when  I  was  interrupted  by  the  stranger.  He  made  many 
apologies  and  asked  a  thousand  pardons,  and  smiled  most 
pleasantly  upon  all,  before  he  spoke  on  the  subject. 

He  said  with  extreme  suavity,  and  with  an  expression  that 
conveyed  a  sort  of  smile  at  my  simplicity  and  ignorance  in 
making  such  an  objection — that  the  Church  of  Rome  never 
enjoined  or  required  her  members  to  pray  to  Mary  or  the 
saints,  but  left  it  as  freely  as  most  Protestants  themselves, 
to  the  feeling  of  her  members  to  do  in  that  respect  as  they 
thought  fit. 

I  was  somcAvhat  amused  at  the  self-satisfaction  and  self- 
complacency  with  which  this  was  said,  as  if  he  was  sure  it 
would  either  silence  me,  or  lead  me  to  withdraw  the  objec- 
tion. I  said  in  reply,  that  I  had  frequently  heard  that  state- 
ment before,  but  that  it  was  from  persons  who  did  not  know 
me,  and  I  was  sure  he  could  hardly  expect  me  to  believe  it. 
The  facts  of  the  case  were  known  to  every  one,  the  practice 
was  universal  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  a  man  must  shut 
his  eyes  if  he  would  avoid  seeing,  it. 

He  again  replied  in  the  same  tone,  in  almost  a  patronizing 
and  compassionating  way,  saying  that  he  must  be  forgiven 
if  he  thought  he  might  understand  his  own  religion  bettei 
than  others — that  Protestants  very  often  make  mistakes  about 
the  Catholic  religion — that  indeed  many  uttered  calumnies 


INVOCATION    OF    SAINTS.  225 

about  her — that  in  foot  the  Council  of  Trent  liad  only  said 
that  it  was  "  good  and  profitable"  to  invoke  the  saints,  and 
had  never  enforced  it  on  any  one,  and  that  he  could  assure 
me,  that  if  I  or  any  Protestant  present,  were  induced  to  enter 
the  Church  of  Rome,  we  should  not  be  required  to  pray  to 
the  saints.  It  was  always  left  to  the  feeling  and  wishes  of 
every  individual  for  himself.  There  was  no  force  or  con- 
straint 2)ut  on  any  one,  for,  he  added  with  a  smile,  you  are 
left,  as  to  this  practice,  altogether  to  the  private  judgment  you 
admire  so  much. 

I  asked  him  to  be  so  kind,  if  he  had  no  particular  objec- 
tion, to  repeat  the  Confiteor,  or  form  of  confession. 

He  immediately  complied,  "  I  confess  to  Almighty  God,  to 
the  blessed  Mary,  ever  Virgin,  to  Blessed  Michael  the  Arch- 
angel, to  Blessed  John  the  Baptist,"  etc. 

I  said  that  before  any  priest  gave  absolution  to  the  peni- 
tent, he  obliged  him  to  make  this  confession,  in  which  he 
must  confess  to  Mary  and  all  the  saints,  and  then  ^^ray  to 
Mary  and  all  the  saints,  and  until  the  penitent  did  this,  you 
would  not  give  him  the  absolution  !  Now  as  this  absolution 
is  held  by  you  to  be  necessary  to  the  communion  of  the 
Church  here,  and  to  salvation  hereafter,  your  making  it  de- 
pendent on  this  confession,  is  certainly  making  praying  to  the 
saints  a  necessary  thing. 

He  hesitated  here,  and  evidently  did  not  know  how  to  an- 
swer me.  It  certainly  was  a  difficulty,  and  he  as  certainly  was 
unprepared  for  it.  The  company  present  showed  that  their 
feeling  was  not  in  his  favor. 

I  continued,  and  reminded  him  that  this  same  "  Confiteor" 
is  part  and  parcel  of  the  mass  or  communion-service  of  his 
Church,  and  that  there  is  no  communion  without  it ;  and  that 
no  man  can  be  admitted  to  receive  the  communion  in  the 
Church  of  Rome,  unless  this  confiteor  be  first  completed  ;  that 
is,  no  man  is  received  to  the  communion  until  he  has  first 
confessed  to  Mary  and  all  the  saints,  and  then  prayed  to 
Mary  and  all  the  saints  ;  and  this,  you  will  admit,  is  very  like 
making  the  practice  necessary.     Is  it  not  a  fact,  I  asked  him, 

10* 


226  EVENINGS    WITH   THE   ROMANISTS. 

that  this  confiteor  is  part  and  parcel  of  your  communion  serv« 
ice  ?     Is  it  not  in  tlie  service  of  the  mass  ? 

He  acknowledged  that  it  was  so,  but  in  a  tone  very  dijQfer- 
ent  from  the  self-complacent  and  pleasing-  manner  that  had 
previously  characterized  him.  I  saw  that  the  feeling  of  all 
present  was  entirely  with  me  on  the  point,  and  I  felt  that  my 
turn  Avas  now  come ;  so  I  remarked  that  I  hoped  he  would 
now  admit  that  I  knew  something  of  his  religion,  or  at  least 
of  the  religion  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  that  he  would 
allow  that  the  Church  of  Rome  did  something  more  than  say 
that  prayer  to  the  saints  was  "  good  and  profitable,"  inasmuch 
as  she  made  it  essential  before  giving  absolution,  and  before 
admission  to  her  communion. 

He  said  no  more,  but  quietly  rose  and  left  the  house.  He 
beckoned  to  my  opponent,  who  immediately  followed  him.  I 
therefore  said  a  few  words  to  make  the  conclusion  of  our  sub- 
ject profitable ;  to  the  effect  that  we  should  find  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  far  more  loving  and  compassionate  and  sympa- 
thizing than  any  saint — far  more  ready  and  willing  to  hear 
our  prayers  and  receive  our  petitions  than  any  saint ;  and  that 
our  best  course  was  to  make  our  way  to  Him,  and  instead  of 
stopping  to  ask  Mary,  or  entreat  Peter,  or  pray  Paul,  to  go  at 
once  to  Jesus  himself — to  cast  ourselves  at  his  feet — to  tell 
Him  all  our  sins,  our  sorrows,  our  shame,  our  need,  and  ask  of 
Him  the  love  and  forgiveness  we  require.  He  has  Himself 
graciously  promised  that  He  will  cast  out  none  that  come  to 
Him,  His  words  are,  "  Him  that  cometh  unto  me  I  will  in 
no  wise  cast  out." 

We  soon  separated. 


THE  WORSHIP  OF  THE    SAINTS. 

The  Origin  of  this  Practice  in  the  Classic  Mythology  of  Eome— The  Contrast  be« 
tween  False  and  True  Religion  in  the  matter  of  Mediation — The  Opinions  of 
learned  Heathens— The  Worship  of  Dulia— Various  groups  of  Texts  of  Scripture 
on  this  Practice — The  Argument  in  its  Favor  from  its  supposed  Humility — The 
Argument  distinguishing  between  Redemption  and  Intercession — This  Practica 
withdraws  the  Devotion  from  Christ. 

There  are  several  circumstances,  as  to  time  and  place  and 
persons,  tliat  must  greatly  effect  the  method  of  conducting 
controversy.  The  halls  of  a  university — the  drawing-room  of 
the  refined — the  library  of  the  learned — the  workshop  of  the 
artisan — the  cottage  of  the  peasant,  all  require  a  different  pro- 
cess of  reasoning  and  illustration,  and  there  is  nothing  more 
certain  than  that  the  mode  of  speaking  to  a  sincere  and  re- 
ligious mind,  must  be  very  different  from  that  of  dealing  with 
one,  that  is  careless  upon  the  subject,  or  enters  on  it  either  as 
an  intellectual  conflict,  or  in  the  spirit  of  a  partisan.  In  ref- 
erence to  the  practice  of  praying  to  the  saints,  I  have 
already  described  a  conversation  with  one  who  was  unfeign- 
edly  religious,  however  mistaken  ;  and  another  with  one  who 
acted  throughout  in  a  spirit  of  factious  partisanship.  There 
are  many  other  ways  of  dealing  with  the  subject,  which  it 
would  be  unpardonable  to  omit  here,  as  I  have  often  used  them, 
varying  them  according  to  the  character  of  the  parties  with 
whom  I  may  have  conversed. 

I  have  frequently  found  among  Roman  Catholics  of  intel- 
ligence and  general  reading,  especially  those  who  have  had 
a  classical  education,  that  the  origin  and  growth  and  history 
of  any  practice  had  considerable  interest — a  peculiar  interest 
when  the  practice  was  traceable  to  the  opinions  and  practices 


228  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

of  classic  times.  Sucli  persons  in  tlie  Cliurcli  of  Rome,  are 
often  better  able  to  appreciate  an  argument  derivable  from 
such  sources,  than  one  founded  on  the  clearest  statements  of 
Holy  Scripture.  They  are  perhaps  acquainted  with  the  former, 
they  are  very  probably  unacquainted  with  the  latter. 

In  nothing  have  I  found  this  more  successful  than  in  the 
matter  of  praying  to  the  saints. 

I  have  often  argued,  that  the  object  of  revealed  religion,  was 
to  overthrow  every  fidse  religion — eveiy  mythology  however 
ancient.  The  pagan  or  heathen  world  had  a  mythology  with 
numerous  gods  and  demi-gods,  varying  in  every  country  and 
every  clime  ;  Asia,  Africa  and  Europe  had  all  their  different 
systems,  and  though  perhaps  having  a  common  origin,  accord- 
ing as  conquests  and  migrations  intermingled  diverse  people  of 
diverse  religions,  they  became  more  or  less  modified,  till  they 
were  innumerable  in  their  phases.  I  have  also  urged,  that 
the  great  distinctive  peculiarity  of  Christianity,  as  contrasted 
with  heathenism,  is  this  : — Christianity  teaches  "  there  is  one 
God  and  one  Mediator  between  God  and  man ;"  while 
heathenism  taught,  there  were  many  gods  and  many  mediators 
between  gods  and  men.  The  classic  mythology  of  Greece  and 
of  Rome  held  the  existence  of  Dii  Mojores,  superior  divinities, 
and  Dii  Minores,  inferior  divinities.  It  was  imagined  that 
the  former  class  possessed  all  power  and  authority,  and  that 
the  latter  acted  as  mediators  between  them  and  mortals ;  so 
that  it  was  a  jiart  of  the  mythology  of  the  age,  that  there  were 
many  gods,  and  many  mediators.  Now  the  revelation  of 
heaven,  contained  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  sets  forth,  in  op- 
position to  this,  that  "  there  is  one  God,  and  one  Mediator  be- 
tween God  and  man."  The  apostle  Paul  draws  the  contrast 
in  the  following  striking  words — "  There  is  none  other  God 
but  one  ;  for  though  there  be  that  are  called  gods  [that  is 
nominal  gods],  wliether  in  heaven  or  in  earth  (as  there  be 
gods  many,  and  lords  many),  but  to  us  there  is  but  one  God, 
the  Father,  of  whom  are  all  things,  and  we  in  Him  ;  and  one 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  by  whom  are  all  things,  and  we  by  Him." 
— 1  Cor.  \'iii.  5,  6.     Here   is  the  point,  of  contrast  between 


THE    WORSHIP    OF   THE    SAINTS,  229 

heathen  mythology  and  Christian  revelation.  Heathen- 
ism admitted  many  gods,  and  many  lords,  or  mediators, 
while  Christianity  admits  only  one  God,  and  one  Lord,  or 
mediator. 

We  charp-e  the  Church  of  Rome  with  havina;  abandoned  this 
distinctive  peculiarity  of  Christianity,  and  with  having  thus  for 
apostatized  into  the  idolatry  of  heathenism.  We  do  not  charge 
her  with  having  many  gods,  but  we  charge  her  with  having 
many  mediators.  Instead  of  holding  the  single  mediation  of 
Jesus  Christ,  she  has  a  lengthy  roll  or  calendar  of  saints — 
whom  she  herself  has  canonized,  and  sets  forth  as  mediators 
and  advocates  "between  God  and  man,"  for  the  purpose  of 
bearing  our  wants  and  prayers  before  God,  and  pleading  with 
Him  in  our  behalf. 

The  answer  made  to  this,  is  generally  a  very  indignant  de- 
nial ;  it  is  strongly  and  emphatically  denied ;  it  is  asserted 
that  no  saint  is  regarded  as  a  god  or  a  goddess :  It  was  the 
system  among  the  heathen  nations — that  which  was  the  clas- 
sic mythology  of  the  Roman  Empire — the  empire  which  has 
since  become  the  field  or  platform  of  the  Roman  Church — ^had 
recognized  an  innumerable  band  of  gods  and  demi-gods ;  yet 
they  regarded  them  as  in  reality  deities,  more  or  less  potent, 
to  be  appeased  or  pacified ;  while  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  the 
notion  of  any  divinity  resident  in  any  saint  was  altogether  and 
expressly  discarded ;  she  holds  the  unity  of  the  godhead  as 
strongly  as  ourselves,  and  there  v>'as  no  charge  she  would  reject 
more  determinedly  than  that  of  having  deified  the  saints,  and 
thus,  like  the  heathen,  multiplied  their  gods. 

In  reply  to  this,  I  have  stated,  that  I  was  quite  aware  that 
the  saints  were  not  gods  or  goddesses,  and  were  not  regarded 
as  such,  or  believed  to-be  such  in  the  Church  of  Rome — that 
if  they  were  believed  to  be  such,  there  would  be  in  that  belief 
an  ample  justification  of  the  religious  worship  which  is  ren- 
dered to  them — that  in  that  case  it  would  only  be  a  matter  of 
course,  that  they  should  be  worshiped ;  but  that  my  objection 
was  that  when  they  were  regarded  as  only  dead  men  and  dead 
women,  ^vhose  bodies  were  moldering  in  the  grave,  waiting 


230  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

for  the  day  of  resurrection,  and  whose  souls  were  supposed  tc 
be  in  heaven ;  that  as  such,  a  religious  worship  so  great  and 
reverential  as  praying  and  confessing  and  making  vows  to 
them,  should  be  offered  to  them.  This  I  have  said,  was  iden- 
tical, not  in  name,  but  in  reality  with  the  practice  of  the  clas- 
sic mythology  of  the  Roman  Empire,  and  was  so  far  an  apos- 
tasy from  the  faith  of  revealed  religion. 

This  apostasy  of  the  Church  of  Rome  Avill  be  more  appa- 
rent, when  we  reflect  that  the  character  of  the  mediation 
which  Romanism  ascribes  to  its  saints  is  precisely  the  same 
as  that  which  heathenism  ascribed  to  its  demi-gods.  It  was 
believed  among  the  heathen,  that  when  a  man  became  illus- 
trious for  his  deeds,  his  conquests,  his  inventions,  or  aught  else 
that  distinguished  him  as  a  benefactor  of  mankind,  he  could 
be  canonized  and  enrolled  among  the  inferior  divinities.  He 
thus  became  a  mediator,  whose  sympathies  with  his  fellow- 
men,  on  one  hand,  and  whose  merits  with  the  gods,  on  the 
other,  fitted  him  for  the  mediatorial  office  of  bearing  the  prayers 
and  the  wants  of  mortals  to  the  presence  of  the  gods.  The 
heathen  philosophers,  Hesiod,  Plato,  and  Apuleius,  all  thus 
speak  of  those  persons.  The  last  named  philosopher  says, 
"  They  are  intermediate  intelligencers,  by  whom  our  prayers 
and  wants  pass  unto  the  gods.  They  are  the  mediators  be- 
tween the  inhabitants  of  earth,  and  the  inhabitants  of  heaven, 
can'ying  thither  our  prayers,  and  drawing  down  their  blessings. 
They  bear  back  and  forward  prayers  from  us,  and  supplies 
from  them  ;  or  they  are  those  that  explain  between  both  parties, 
and  who  carry  our  adorations,  etc."  This  Avas  the  creed  of 
heathenism,  and  in  nothing  but  the  name  does  it  differ  from 
the  corresponding  creed  of  Romanism.  When  the  Church  of 
Rome  finds  members  of  her  communion,  whom  she  reo-ards  as 
signally  pious,  or  illustrious  for  supposed  miraculous  powers, 
she  holds  that  they  may  be  canonized  and  enrolled  among  her 
saints — that  then  they  can  mediate  between  God  and  man- 
that  they  have  sufficient  favor  or  influence  with  God  to  obtain 
compliance  with  our  prayers,  and  therefore  they  are  fitting 
objects  to  whom  our  confessions,  invocations  and  prayers  may 


THE    WOESHIP    OF   THE    SAINTS.  231 

be  offered  ;  or  as  she  expresses  it  in  her  creed,  "  that  the  saints 
reigning  with  Christ  are  to  be  honored  and  invoked,  and  that 
they  offer  prayers  to  God  for  us."  The  principle  of  heathen 
Romanism,  and  the  principle  of  Christian  Romanism  are  one 
and  the  same,  the  only  difference  is  in  the  detail  of  the  names. 
And  the  origin  of  this  practice  is  demonstrative  of  this ;  for 
when  it  was  found,  after  the  establishment  of  Christianity,  in 
the  times  of  Constantine,  when  the  great  object  of  the  court 
was  to  promote  uniformity  of  religion,  that  many  of  the  hea- 
then would  outwardly  conform  to  Cliristianity,  if  allowed  to 
retain  in  private  their  worship  of  their  guardian  or  tutelary 
divinities,  they  were  so  allowed,  merely  on  changing  the  names 
of  Jupiter  to  Peter,  or  Juno  to  Mary,  still  worshiping  their  old 
divinities  under  new  names,  and  even  retaining  old  images  that 
were  baptized  with  Christian  names.  This  is  apparent  in  the 
writings  of  those  times,  and  was  thought  a  measure  of  wis- 
dom— a  stroke  of  profound  policy,  as  tending  to  produce  a 
uniformity  of  religion  among  the  imthinking  masses.  The  in- 
vocations of  Juno  have  been  transferred  to  Mary ;  the  prayers 
to  Mercury  have  been  transferred  to  Paul.  We  see  not  how 
the  substitution  of  the  names  of  Damian  or  Cosmo  for  those 
of  Mercury  or  Apollo,  or  how  the  substitution  of  the  names 
of  Lucy  or  Cecilia  for  those  of  Minerva  or  Diana,  can  alter 
the  idolatrous  character  of  the  practice.  In  some  instances 
they  have  not  even  changed  the  names,  and  Romulus  and 
Remus  are  still  worshiped  in  Italy,  under  the  more  modern 
names  of  St.  Romulo  and  St.  Remigio.  The  simple  people 
believe  them  to  have  been  two  holy  bishops.  I  have  myself 
witnessed  this  near  Florence,  and  even  Bacchus  is  not  without 
his  votaries,  under  the  ecclesiastical  name  of  St.  Bacco  !  The 
principle  and  the  practice  of  papal  Rome  are  identical  with 
the  principle  and  practice  of  pagan  Rome.  Every  argument 
to  justify  one  may  be  equally  urged  to  justify  or  extenuate 
the  other.  And  if  the  principle  and  practice  of  pagan  Rome 
are  to  be  denounced  as  idolatrous,  I  see  not  why  the  very  same 
principle  and  practice  in  papal  Rome  should  not  be  denounced 
as  idolatrous  likewise. 


232  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

To  this  point,  they  replied  that  the  systems  were  not  the 
same,  that  in  pagan  Rome  they  regarded  these  persons  as  gods 
or  as  demi-gods,  as  possessing  at  least  some  portion  of  the 
divinity,  and  they  worshiped  tliom  and  sacrificed  to  them  as 
such  ;  whereas  in  Papal  or  Christian  Rome,  they  regarded  the 
saints  as  men  and  women,  who  were  the  friends  and  favorites 
of  God,  as  unable  to  assist  us,  or  do  any  thing  for  us,  except  to 
exert  their  influence  with  God  by  praying  on  our  behalf — that 
as  such  the  Church  of  Rome  never  paid  divine  worship  to  the 
saints,  but  only  an  inferior  or  lesser  worship,  called  duleia — 
the  worship  of  luiqiiu  being  rendered  to  God  alone,  that  of 
deism  being  rendered  to  the  saints,  while  an  intermediate  wor- 
ship called  insgdaleia  was  rendered  to  the  Virgin  Mary. 

My  reply  to  this  has  always  been  that  my  ai'gument  has  not 
been  an  argument  about  names  but  about  things.  If  the 
homage  or  worship  paid  to  the  Christian  saints  be  identical  in 
its  nature  and  character  to  that  paid  to  the  heathen  demigod, 
it  is  about  the  thing  and  not  the  name  we  should  argue.  But 
since  the  question  has  been  raised  as  to  the  name  or  kind  of 
worship — as  to  rendering  to  the  saints  that  kind  and  degree 
of  religious  worship  called  Suleia^  it  was  the  very  same  in  kind 
and  degree,  with  that  which  the  heathen  rendered  to  their 
demi-gods.  The  Apostle  Paul  explicitly  states  this ;  for  de- 
scribing the  worship  of  the  classic  heathen,  before  their  con- 
version to  Christianity,  he  says  "  when  ye  knew  not  God,  ye 
paid  the  service  of  deleivc  to  them  that  by  nature  are  no  gods." 
Gal.  iv.  8.  Tliis  is  a  clear  and  decisive  statement,  showing 
that  while  the  Galatians  knew  not  the  true  God,  they  rendered 
to  their  false  gods,  to  those  who  were  not  gods  by  nature,  the 
service  of  Saleux^  the  very  service  which  the  Church  of  Rome 
avows  that  she  pays  to  the  saints  who  are  not  gods.  The  very 
words  of  the  Apostle's  description  of  the  heathen  state  of  the 
Galatians,  describe  with  precision  the  actual  state  of  the 
Church  of  Rome,  "  ye  pay  ^«Af  <«  to  them  who  by  nature  are 
no  gods."  * 

*  The  following  well-known  prayer  embodies  the  three  species  or 
degrees  of  worship  together : — 


THE    WORSHIl'    OF    THE    SAINTS.  233 

To  this  I  am  not  acquainted  with  any  reply.  It  efi'ectually 
silences  all  those  who  attempt  to  justify  the  system  on  the  plea 
of  giving  only  the  service  of  Dulia  to  the  saints.  It  only  iden- 
tifies the  practice  of  Papal  Rome  with  the  practice  of  Pagan 
Rome,  as  being  paid  to  those  'who  are  not  gods  by  nature. 

But  while  the  Church  of  Rome  has  thus  departed  from  that 
which  is  the  great  distinctive  mark  of  Christianity,  as  distin- 
guishing it  from  the  classic  mythology,  it  has  also  adopted 
herein  a  practice  in  direct  repugnance  to  the  whole  language 
of  Holy  Scripture.  It  is  impossible,  owing  to  the  multitude 
of  Scriptures  bearing  on  this  point,  to  enter  on  any  detail,  and 
I  shall,  therefore,  endeavor  to  group  them — to  classify  them 
into  certain  groups  of  texts,  which  will  sufficiently  intimate  the 
general  character  of  all.  Each  group  becomes^a  distinct  ar- 
gument in  itself. 

1.  The  first  class  comprehends  those  passages  which  ex- 
pressly deny  the  mediation  of  any  other  than  One — even 
Jesus  Christ.  I  have  already  referred  to  that  place,  where  we 
read — "  There  is  none  other  God  but  one ;  for  though  there 
be,  that  are  called  gods,  whether  in  heaven  or  iu  earth  (as 
there  be  gods  many  and  lords  many),  but  to  us  there  is  but 
one  God,  the  Father,  of  whom  are  all  things,  and  we  in  Him  ; 
and  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  by  whom  are  all  things,  and  we 
by  Him." — 1  Cor,  viii.  5,  6.  This  asserts,  that  as  there  is 
only  one  God^  so  there  is  only  one  Lord  or  Mediator;  as  it  is 
expressed  in  the  place — "  There  is  one  God  and  one  Mediator 
between  God  and  man,  the  man  Christ  Jesus." — 1  Tim.  ii.  5. 
It  is  argued  that  although  this  place  asserts,  there  is  "  one 
Mediator,"  yet  that  this  does  not  imply  that  there  may  not  be 
many  more  mediators  besides — that  the  assertion  of  "  one 

"  Jesus,  Mary,  Joseph,  I  give  you  my  heart  and  my  soul. 
Jesus,  Mary,  Joseph,  assist  me  in  my  last  agony. 
Jesus,  Mary,  Joseph,  I  breathe  out  my  soul  to  you  in  peace." 
To  this  prayer  is  affixed  an  Indulgence  of  one  hundred  days,  by  a 
Bull  issued  in  1807,  and  in  it  are  the  three  degrees  of  worship — Latria 
to  Jesus ;  Dulia  to  Joseph ;  Hyperdulia  to  Mary  1     It  ia  rather  hard 
for  a  simple  man  to  distinguish  such  niceties. 


234  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

Mediator"  is  not  necessarily  au  exclusion  of  many  others.  But 
any  man,  who  reads  the  words, — "  There  is  one  God,  and  one 
Mediator  between  God  and  man,  the  Man  Christ  Jesus,"  will 
perceive,  that  if  the  phrase  "  one  Mediator"  is  to  be  explained 
as  allowing  the  existence  of  many  other  mediators,  then  the 
phrase,  "  one  God,"  must  be  also  explained  as  allowing  the 
existence  of  many  other  gods.  He  will  at  once  perceive  that 
the  true  purport  of  the  passage  is,  that  as  there  is  but  "  one 
God,"  so  there  is  but  "  one  Mediator,"  and  that  Mediator  is 
Jesus  Christ.  The  same  remark  is  applicable  to  the  words — 
"  If  any  man  sin,  we  have  an  Advocate  with  the  Father,  Jesus 
Christ  the  righteous,  and  He  is  the  propitiation  for  our  sins." — 
1  John  ii.  1.  It  is  the  intention  of  such  language  to  convey, 
that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  only  Advocate.  There  is  no  allusion 
to  Mary  or  Lucy  or  Cecilia.  There  is  no  mention  of  Damian, 
or  Protase  or  Thaddeus.  There  is  one  Advocate — one  Lord 
—one  Mediator — even  as  there  is  one  God. 

2.  The  second  class  of  Scripture  texts  consists  of  those  which 
ascribe  the  blessings  and  privileges  of  the  Gospel,  as  flowing 
to  the  Church,  through  the  mediation  of  Jesus  Christ.  We 
read,  that  "  through  Him  we  have  access  by  one  Spirit  unto 
the  Father."  And  again,  "  Now  in  Christ  Jesus,  ye  who  were 
afar  off,  are  made  nigh  by  the  blood  of  Christ — Eph.  ii.  13,  18. 
And  again,  "  according  to  the  eternal  purpose,  which  He  pur- 
posed in  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord,  in  whom  we  have  boldness 
and  access  with  confidence,  by  the  faith  of  Him." — Eph.  iii.  11. 
And  again,  "  We  have  peace  with  God,  through  Jesus  Christ 
our  Lord,  by  whom  we  have  access  by  faith." — Rom.  v.  3' 
And  again — "  Ye  are  to  offer  spiritual  sacrifices,  acceptable  to 
God  by  Jesus  Christ." — 1  Peter,  i.  5.  This  class  of  texts 
might  be  extended  to  any  length,  for  they  are  innumerable. 
And  their  value  in  our  present  argument  is,  that  they  set  forth 
Jesus  Christ  as  the  mean — the  person  mediating  between  us 
and  our  God — the  Mediator  between  God  and  man,  through 
whom  we  have  access,  in  whom  we  are  accepted,  by  whom 
our  prayers  are  presented ;  while  at  the  same  time,  there  is 
not  the  remotest  allusion  to  any  others — not  the  faintest  im- 


THE    WORSHIP    OF    THE    SAINTS.  235 

plication  that  there  are  any  others,  through  whom  we  ^can 
have  access,  or  by  whom  our  prayers  can  Le  made  acceptable. 
The  truth  involved  in  them  all  is,  that  which  Jesus  Christ  has 
Himself  proclaimed — "  I  am  the  way,  and  the  truth,  and  the 
life  ;  no  man  can  come  unto  the  Father  but  by  Me." — John 
xiv.  16. 

3.  There  is  a  third  class  of  Scriptures,  that  bears  strongly 
on  this  point.  It  embraces  those  which  expressly  mention 
that  it  is  through  Jesus  Christ  our  prayers  are  to  be  offered 
to  the  throne  of  grace.  His  own  words  are — "  I  go  to  My 
Father  ;  and  whatsoever  ye  shall  ask  the  Father  in  My  name; 
that  will  I  do,  that  the  Father  may  be  glorified  in  the  Son. 
If  ye  shall  ask  any  thing  in  My  name,  I  will  do  it." — John, 
xiv.  13,  14.  Again — "In  that  day  ye  shall  ask  me  nothing. 
Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  whatsoever  ye  shall  ask  the 
Father  in  My  name  ;  He  will  give  it  you.  Hitherto  have  ye 
asked  nothing  in  My  name  ;  ask,  and  ye  shall  receive,  that 
your  joy  may  be  full." — John,  xvi.  23,  24.  And  again — "  In 
that  day  ye  shall  ask  in  My  name  ;  and  I  say  not  unto  you, 
that  I  will  pray  the  Father  for  you." — John,  xvi.  26.  This 
class  of  Scriptures  is  of  great  importance  in  this  question  ;  for 
they  prove  that  it  is  not  only  in  the  matter  of  redemption, 
but  in  the  matter  of  intercession,  that  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
is  the  Mediator.  And  coming  from  the  gracious  lips  of  Jesus 
Himself,  they  affix  the  promise  of  hearing  and  answering 
prayer  only  to  such  prayers  as  are  offered  in  the  name  of 
Jesus  Christ.  There  is  no  promise  of  hearing  or  answering 
any  prayer,  that  may  be  offered  through  any  other  mediator, 
save  Him,  who  is  the  "  one  Mediator  between  God  and  man." 
If  offered  in  his  name,  we  have  the  promise  that  our  prayers 
shall  be  heard  and  answered.  If  offered  in  the  name  of  any 
angel  or  saint,  we  have  no  promise  whatever,  that  the  prayer 
shall  be  heard  or  answered. 

4.  But  this  suggests  a  fourth  class  of  Scriptures,  involving 
another  argument.  I  allude  to  those  in  which  religious  wor- 
ship is  stated  to  have  been  offered  to  angels,  and  to  have  been 
refused  by  them.     I  allude  to  the  words — "  And  I  fell  at  his 


236  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

feet  to  worsliip  him.  And  lie  said  nnto  me,  See  thou  do  it 
not ;  I  am  thy  fellov.'-servant,  and  of  thy  brethren  that  have 
the  testimony  of  Jesus ;  worship  God ;  for  the  testimony  of 
Jesus  is  the  spirit  of  prophecy." — Rev.  xix.  10.  And  again — 
"  I  John  saw  these  things  and  heard  them.  And  when  I  had 
heard  and  seen,  I  fell  down  to  worship  before  the  feet  of  the 
anofel  which  showed  me  these  thing-s.  Then  saith  he  unto 
m-e,  See  thou  do  it  not ;  for  I  am  thy  fellow-servant,  and  of 
thy  brethren  the  prophets,  and  of  them  which  keep  the  say- 
ing of  this  book :  Avorship  God."  Here  was  John  so  over- 
powered with  the  glory  of  the  angel,  that  he  prostrated  him- 
self to  worship  before  his  feet ;  and  the  angel,  at  once  and 
with  all  earnestness,  forbids  and  rebukes  it.  And  not  only  so, 
but  assigns  as  a  reason,  that  he  was  himself  but  the  servant  of 
God,  who  alone  was  to  be  worshiped ;  and  therefore  to  each 
rebuke  he  adds  the  solemn  warning — "  Worship  God."  So 
keenly  is  this  rebuke  of  the  angel  felt  by  some  of  the  advo- 
cates of  the  Church  of  Rome,  that  they  have  cut  it  out  of 
their  catechism — urging  the  action  of  John  in  worshiping  the 
angel  as  a  proof  that  we  may,  after  his  example,  likewise  wor- 
ship the  angels ;  and  then  carefully  suppressing  the  answer  of 
the  angel,  which  censured  and  rebuked  him  !*  In  the  whole 
history  of  the  Church  there  has  never  been  so  wilfully  per- 
verted and  falsely  handled  a  Scripture  as  this  ;  and  in  such  a 
daring  abuse  of  the  Word  of  God  the  Church  of  Rome  has 
had  no  rival,  but  on  that  occasion  when  the  devil  quoted 
Scripture  on  the  mount. 

5.  But  while  these  Scriptures  illustrate  our  position  in 
reference  to  the  angels,  there  is  another  class  that  illustrates  it 
in  reference  to  the  saints.  I  allude  to  the  place,  "  As  Peter 
was  coming  in,  Cornelius  met  him,  and  fell  down  at  his  feet, 
and  worshiped  him  :  but  Peter  took  him  up,  saying,  Stand 
up ;  I  myself  also  am  a  man." — Acts,  x.  25,  26.  And  again  : 
"  The  priest  of  Jupiter,  which  was  before  their  city,  brought 

*  This  occurs  in  the  Catechism  published  by  the  celebrated  Dr. 
Doyle,  for  Ireland. 


THE    WORSHIP    OF    THE    SAINTS.  237 

oxen  and  garlands  unto  the  gates,  and  would  have  done  sacri- 
fice with  the  people.  Which,  when  the  apostles,  Barnabas 
and  Paul,  heard  of,  they  rent  their  clothes,  and  ran  in  among 
the  people,  crying  out,  and  saying.  Sirs,  why  do  you  these 
things  ?  we  also  are  men  of  like  passions  with  you,  and  preach 
unto  you  that  you  should  turn  from  these  vanities  unto  the 
living  God,  which  made  heaven,  and  earth,  and  the  sea,  and 
all  things  that  are  therein." — Acts,  xiv.  13-15.  Here  we  fio^ 
that  both  Peter  and  Paul — whose  names  are  in  the  Roman 
Litany  as  persons  to  whom  prayers  are  to  be  made,  and  in 
honor  of  whom  the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass  is  to  be  oftered,  did 
refuse  both  the  prayer  and  the  sacrifice.  And  they  both 
assign  the  same  argument  for  their  refusal — Peter  saying,  "  I 
myself  also  am  a  man,"  and  Paul  saying,  "  "We  are  men  of 
like  passions  with  you ;"  showing  that  the  fact  of  their  being 
men  and  not  God,  disentitled  them  to  all  religious  worship. 
And  feeling  as  we  do,  that  it  was  more  rational  to  pray  to 
them  when  on  earth,  and  when  therefore  they  were  able  to 
hear,  than  to  pray  to  them  when  in  heaven,  and  where  they 
are  not  able  to  hear  us — feeling  this,  and  remembering  that 
the  saints  themselves,  while  they  lived,  refused  the  religious 
honors  that  were  tendered  them,  we  conclude  that  they  would 
still  refuse,  if  they  could  know  it,  the  confessions,  and  invo- 
cations and  prayers 'that  are  made,  and  the  sacrifices  of  Masses 
that  are  oflered  to  their  honor  in  the  Church  of  Rome. 

6.  There  is  a  sixth  class  of  Scriptures — the  last  to  which  1 
shall  refer,  as  illustrating  the  doctrine  of  our  Church.  We 
invariably,  in  the  Church  of  England,  offer  our  prayers  to  God  : 
and  we  justify  this,  by  that  large  class  of  Scriptures,  which 
contains  the  prayers  and  invocations  of  holy  men,  in  all  ages 
of  the  Church  of  God.  All  the  prayers  oflered  by  Moses,  by 
Abraham,  by  Hannah,  by  David,  by  Solomon,  by  Daniel,  by 
Jonah,  by  the  apostles,  we  find,  without  one  solitary  exception, 
offered  neither  to  angels  or  saints,  but  only  to  God.  And  in 
the  Psalms  of  David,  he  repeats  his  determination  to  invoke 
God,  and  God  alone.  "  As  for  me,"  he  says,  "  I  will  call  on 
the  Lord,"  and  "  we  will  call  on  Thy  name,"  and  "  I  will  call 


238  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

on  Him  as  long  as  I  live."  In  innumerable  i^laces  in  tlie  book 
of  Psalms  the  very  word  "  invoco  " — "  to  invocate,"  is  used  in 
the  Vulgate  or  Romish  Scriptures,  and  in  every  case  it  is  an 
invocation  of  God,  and  there  is  not  a  single  or  solitary  instance 
of  its  being  made  to  angels  or  saints.  The  only  case  that  looks 
like  it,  is  in  the  parable  of  Dives  and  Lazarus ;  there  the  rich 
man  in  the  torments  of  hell  ofi'ers  a  prayer  to  Abraham.  This 
is  the  only  example.  The  only  example  of  a  man  praying  to 
a  saint,  is  the  example  of  a  damned  spirit  in  hell !  the  only 
example  of  a  man  praying  to  a  saint,  is  the  example  of  a  prayer 
that  was  refused  !  and  yet  the  Church  of  Rome,  rejecting  the 
examples  of  such  holy  ones,  as  Abraham,  and  David,  and 
Daniel,  and  Paul,  and  Peter,  selects  as  the  model  to  imitate, 
this  solitary  example  of  a  man  praying  to  a  saint  from  the  tor- 
ments of  hell ! 

I  have  thus  grouped  these  six  classes  of  tt-xts — each  group 
in  itself  supplying  a  distinct  argument  against  the  practice  of 
the  Church  of  Rome.  The  whole  collectively  form  an  insur- 
mountable barrier  against  our  compliance  with  her  practice. 
We  dare  not  abandon  the  mediation  of  Christ  to  have  recourse 
to  the  mediation  of  saints.  We  can  not — we  dare  not  pluck 
the  mediatorial  crown  from  the  brow  of  Jesus,  to  place  it  on 
the  brow  of  His  saints.  And  as  for  making  the  saints  media- 
tors along  with  Him  and  beside  Him — as  for  making  them 
sharers  or  partners  or  rivals  with  Him  in  that  glorious  ofBce — 
I  feel  that  we  should  do  Him  a  less  dishonor  in  dethroning 
Him  altogether,  than  in  raising  so  many  partners  to  the  throne  ; 
I  feel  that  we  should  do  Him  a  less  dishonor  in  renouncing 
Christianity  altogether,  than  in  exalting  this  heathenish  idolatry 
beside  Christianity.  The  idol  of  Dagon  could  stand  in  peace 
in  his  temple  while  it  was  alone  :  the  Ark  of  Jehovah  could 
rest  in  peace  in  its  Tabernacle  while  it  was  alone ;  but  when 
once  they  were  brought  together,  the  anger  of  Jehovah  was 
kindled — the  silence  of  the  temple  of  Dagon  was  broken,  and 
the  idol  was  shattered  in  pieces.  The  idolatry  of  heathenism 
shall  stand  till  the  Lord's  time ;  the  worship  of  Christianity 
shall  stand  forever;  but  if  heathenism  and  Christianity  are  to 


THE   WORSHIP    OF    THE    SAINTS.  239 

be  dove-tailed  into  each  other — if  they  are  to  be  so  amalga- 
mated as  to  make  but  one  religion  in  one  temj^le  (as  is  done 
in  the  Church  of  Rome) — then  it  is  practically  to  place  Satan 
side  by  side  with  Christ  upon  the  throne :  the  deepest  and  the 
blackest  dishonor  that  man  could  perpetrate  against  his  God. 

I  have,  as  occasioned  offered,  pressed  an  argument  against 
praying  to  the  saints,  based  on  each  separate  class,  or  group 
of  these  Scriptures,  and  my  opponents  have  more  or  less  en- 
deavored to  Aveaken  their  force,  though  not  unfrequcntly  the 
natural  conclusion  deducible  from  them  has  been  fairly  and 
candidly  admitted.  I  have,  then,  usually  called  attention  to 
the  whole  of  these  grouped  together,  as  foiming,  like  the  com- 
pleteness of  an  architectural  pile,  a  powerful  argument  affecting 
the  mind  by  its  general  bearing,  as  illustrative  of  the  general 
tone  of  Christianity. 

To  all  this,  they  have  often  presented  two  replies. 

They  first  argue,  that  so  far  from  being  a  dishonor  done  to 
Christ  and  his  mediation  and  intercession,  it  has  the  opposite 
tendency.  It  exhibits  humility,  as  showing  them  to  be  so  lowly 
and  humble  as  that  they  are  unwilling  to  come  directly  into 
his  high  and  holy  presence,  and  presuming  only  to  approach 
him  through  his  saints.  They  argue  that  it  is  like  approach- 
ing an  earthly  sovereign,  not  directly  to  his  person  and  pres- 
ence, but  through  his  favorites  and  courtiers — that  thus  in- 
stead of  being  a  dishonor  done  to  Christ,  it  is  rather  an  evi- 
dence of  humilty  in  themselves. 

To  this  we  reply  in  the  words  of  Holy  Scriptures  :  "  Let  no 
man  beguile  you  of  your  reward  in  a  voluntary  huviility  and 
worshiping  of  angels,  intruding  into  those  things  which  he 
hath  not  seen,  vainly  puffed  up  by  his  fleshly  mind." — Col.  ii. 
18.  From  these  words,  it  would  appear  that  this  practice  was 
attempted  to  be  justified  in  the  very  beginnings  of  Christian- 
ity, under  this  very  same  plea  of  humility  ;  that  men  arguing 
fi'om  the  practice  of  the  courts  of  earth,  assumed  an  analo- 
gous practice  to  the  courts  in  heaven,  and  that  the  Holy  Scrip- 
ture in  this  place  warns  us  against  this  as  "  a  voluntary  humil- 
ity," and  then  adds  :  "  Which  things  indeed  have  a  show  of 


240  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

wisdom  iu  -will-worship  and  humility,^''  verse  23  ;  not  the 
reality  of  a  Christian  humility,  but  the  mere  appearance — the 
show  of  it !  And  this  was  precisely  the  view  taken  of  this 
text  in  the  j^rimitive  Church.  Theodoret,  who  lived  in  the 
fourth  century,  comments  on  these  words  thus :  "  Because 
some  persons  commanded  men  to  worship  angels,  the  apostle 
commands  the  contrary,  namely,  that  they  should  adorn  their 
words  with  the  remembrance  of  the  Lord  Christ,  and  present 
their  thanksgivings  to  God  even  the  Father,  through  him,  and 
not  through  angels.  The  Council  of  Laodicea  following  this 
rule,  and  desiring  to  extirpate  this  inveterate  disease,  made  a 
law  that  men  should  not  pray  to  angels,  and  leave  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ."  He  says  again  :  "  This  vice  continued  in  Phry- 
gia  and  Pisidia  for  a  long  time  ;  and  for  this  reason  the  council 
assembled  at  Laodicea,  the  chief  city  of  Phrygia,  forbad 
them  by  a  law  to  pray  to  angels ;"  and-  Theodoret  states  that 
they  "  practiced  this  under  pretense  of  its  humility^  saying, 
that  God  was  invisible,  inaccessible,  and  incomprehensible, 
and  that  it  was  fitting  that  we  should  approach  him  through 
the  means  of  the  angels."  It  is  a  humility  that  injures  and 
dishonors  Christ.  If  there  be  one  trait  iu  His  character,  if 
there  be  one  jewel  in  His  diadem,  more  conspicuous  than 
another,  it  is  His  loving-kindness  and  compassion,  evidencing 
his  willingness  to  hear  and  receive  us.  Every  act  he  per- 
formed— every  suffering  he  endured — every  word  he  uttered, 
is  an  evidence  of  his  willingness  to  hear  and  receive  us.  There 
are  his  many  promises  ;  there  are  his  many  invitations  ;  there 
are  his  many  entreaties,  to  induce  us  to  come  to  Him ;  and 
they  all  are  so  many  evidences  of  his  v/illingness  to  hear  and 
receive  us.  He  has  exhibited  Himself  in  every  conceivable 
way,  that  could  evidence  his  accessibleness — his  willingness 
to  be  approached  by  the  poorest  and  humblest  sinner.  He 
has  shown  this  to  such  a  degree,  that  we  can  not  hesitate  for 
a  moment  in  stating,  that  no  man  can  rightly  peruse  the  Holy 
Scriptures  without  the  fullest  conviction  that  Jesus  Christ  is 
at  all  times,  and  under  all  circumstances,  infinitely  more  will- 
ing to  hear  our  petitions  than  any  of  the  angels  or  saints  can 


THK    WORSHIP    OF    THE    SAINTS.  241 

be,  to  be  the  bearers  of  them.  And,  therefore,  we  conclude 
that  this  plea  of  humility,  while  it  is  only  "  a  show  of  hmnili- 
ty,"  is  really  throwing  a  doubt  on  the  invitations — putting  an 
atTront  upon  the  compassions,  and  an  insult  upon  the  tender- 
ness of  Jesus  Christ. 

The  second  answer  which  they  urge,  and  indeed  very  fre- 
quently urge,  against  the  inference  fi'om  all, the  language  of 
Scripture  is,  that  though  applicable  as  proving  Jesus  Christ 
to  be  the  only  mediator  of  redemption,  they  do  not  prove  him 
to  be  the  only  mediator  of  intercession.  And,  therefore,  when 
it  is  proved  that  "  there  is  one  God,  and  one  mediator  be- 
tween God  and  man,"  the  words  having  reference  to  Christ, 
as  the  mediator  of  redemption.,  do  not  exclude  the  saints  as 
mediators  of  intercessio^i. 

The  rejoinder  to  this  case  is  clear.  It  is  evident  that  this 
objection  assumes  that  when  the  Holy  Scriptures  state,  "There 
is  one  God,  and  one  Mediator  between  God  and  man,"  they 
do  not  refer  to  a  mediator  of  intercession ;  whereas  the  con- 
text proves  beyond  all  question,  that  in  that  very  place  the 
reference  is  to  Jesus  Christ  as  a  mediator  of  intercession,  as 
well  as  a  mediator  of  redemption.  The  whole  passage  is  as 
follows :  "  I  exhort,  therefore,  that  first  of  all  sup2)lications, 
prayers^  intercessions.,  and  giving  of  thanks  be  made  for  all 
men :  for  kings,  and  for  all  that  are  in  authority ;  that  we 
may  lead  a  quiet  and  peaceable  life  in  all  godliness  and  hon- 
esty. For  this  is  good  and  acceptable  in  the  sight  of  God  our 
Saviour ;  who  will  have  all  men  to  be  saved,  and.  to  come 
unto  the  knowledge  of  the  truth.  For  there  is  one  God  and 
one  Mediator  between  God  and  men,  the  man  Christ  Jesus : 
who  gave  Himself,  a  ransom  for  all,  to  be  testified  in  due  time." 
— 1  Tim.  ii.  1-6.  The  subject-matter  of  this  exhortation  is 
*'  supplications,  prayers,  intercessions,  and  gi^^ng  of  thanks." 
And  it  encourages  us  to  these  exercises  and  privileges,  in  the 
assurance  that  we  have  a  mediator  in  Jesus  Christ,  through 
whom  they  shall  be  presented  unto  God,  and  by  whom  they 
shall  be  acceptable,  as  He  has  laid  down  His  life  as  a  ransom 
for  us.     And  yet,  though  "  supplications,  prayers,  intercessions 

11 


242  -EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

and  giving  of  ihanks,"  are  expressly  the  subject  of  this  Scrip- 
ture,  the  advocates  of  Rome  would  endeavor  to  persuade  us 
that  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  not  here  described  as  the  Media- 
tor of  intercession ! 

Aud  this  brings  this  subject  to  its  true  conclusion.  In  the 
religion  of  revelation,  there  is  no  one  truth  more  certain,  as 
there  is  none  more  comforting,  than  the  mediation  and  inter- 
cession of  Jesus  Christ.  It  is  stated  that  he  is  "  the  High 
Priest  of  our  profession,"  and  in  that  capacity  he  is  ever  in  the 
presence  of  the  Almighty,  making  intercession  in  behalf  of  hia 
people ;  there  He  ever  presents  them  before  the  throne  of 
grace.  He  pleads  in  their  behalf.  He  has  suffered  for  them,  He 
has  poured  forth  his  blood  for  them,  He  has  died  on  the  cross 
for  them,  and  now  in  the  heaven  of  heavens.  He  presents  His 
bleeding  sacrifice.  His  spotless  work.  His  everlasting  right- 
eousness, His  infinite  merits.  His  effectual  intercession  for  them. 
It  is  written,  "  He  is  able  to  save  to  the  uttermost,  all  that 
come  imto  God  by  Him,  seeing  He  ever  liveth  to  make  inter- 
cession for  them."  And  then,  there  is  love — such  love  in  the 
depth  of  His  heart,  for  those  whom  He  came  to  seek  and  to 
save — a  love,  the  length,  and  breath,  and  depth,  and  height, 
of  which  no  man  can  comprehend — a  love  that  like  His  own 
nature  is  infinite  ;  and  with  such  a  High  Priest  pleading  for 
us,  and  such  love  yearning  toward  us,  it  seems  a  cold  and  sad 
return  on  our  parts,  to  look  on  all  that  prevailing  intercession 
and  all  that  wondrous  love,  as  inefficient,  so  that  we  must  go 
seek  the  intercession  and  depend  on  the  love  of  supposed 
saints,  who  know  nothing  of  us,  have  never  died  for  us,  and 
have  never  shown  any  love  toward  us.  St.  Chrysostom  has  a 
beautiful  passage  on  this  subject.  In  allusion  to  the  woman 
of  Canaan  he  says,  "  God  is  a  ways  near  us :  if  we  entreat  a 
man,  we  must  inquire  what  he  is  doing,  and  whether  he  is 
asleep  or  at  leisure,  and  perhaps  the  servant  gives  no  answer. 
But  with  God  there  is  nothing  of  all  this,  wherever  you  go 
and  call  on  Him,  He  hears.  With  Him  there  is  no  want  of 
leisure,  no  mediator,  no  servant  to  keep  you  off.  Mark  the 
wisdom  of  the  woman  of  Canaan,  she  does  not  pray  to  James 


THE    WORSHIP    OF   THE    SAINTS.  243 

she  does  not  beseech  John,  she  does  not  fly  to  Peter,  but  she 
breaks  through  them  all  saying,  I  want  no  mediator,  but  tak- 
ing repentance  as  my  spokesman,  I  come  to  the  fountain  itself; 
it  was  for  this  He  left  the  heavens,  it  was  for  this  He  became 
flesh,  it  was  that  such  as  I  might  have  boldness  to  speak  to 
Himself;  I  want  no  mediator  with  Him.  Have  mercy  upon 
me."  This  is  the  true  spirit  of  the  Gospel.  The  system  of 
the  Church  of  Rome  teaching  her  members  to  trust  to  the  in- 
tercession of  the  saint,  is  an  injury  to  the  intercession  of  Jesus 
Christ  as  if  she  thought  this  required  their  assistance ;  and 
her  teaching  her  members  to  rest  on  the  love  of  the  saints, 
imphes  a  want  of  faith  in  the  infinite  love  of  him  "  who  hath 
loved  us  and  given  himself  for  us."  And  it  has  the  unhappy 
effects  of  drawing  away  the  mind  and  heart  from  Christ,  and 
directing  prayer  and  praise,  and  thanksgiving,  and  love,  and 
worship,  to  the  saints  instead  of  to  the  Saviour — to  the  creature 
instead  of  the  Creator.  St.  Paul  tells  us  this  was  the  charac- 
teristic of  the  heathen  Romans,  that  "  they  served  the  creature 
more  than  the  Creator." 

And  it  is  well  worthy  of  remark,  that  it  was  this  character- 
istic of  the  ancient  heathenism  of  Rome  that  it  is  said  by 
modern  Roman  Catholic  divines  to  have  been  the  cause  of 
saint-worship  not  being  permitted  among  primitive  Christians. 
Delahogue  allows  this  in  his  work,  forming  as  it  does  the 
class  book  of  Maynooth.  It  is  a  fact  on  which  there  is  no 
question  among  the  learned  of  all  Churches — it  is  admitted  by 
the  ablest  divines  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  that  prayer  to  the 
saints  was  altogether  unpracticed  and  unknown  among  the' 
Christians  of  the  early  ages  ;  and  as  the  evidence  of  this  fact  is"* 
so  clear  and  strong  as  an  argument  against  this  novel  practice 
of  the  Church  of  Rome,  the  divines  of  that  Church  are  obliged 
to  explain  the  absence  or  omission  of  this  practice  in  the  best 
and  purest  time,  by  telling  us  that  praying  to  the  saints  was 
not  countenanced  lest  it  should  seem  to  be  identified  with  the 
praying  to  the  demi-gods — lest  the  heathen  and  Christian  prac- 
tice should  seem  alike.  They  tell  us  that  on  this  account 
prayers  to  saints  were  not  permitted  till  heathenism  was  abol- 


244  EVENINGS    WITH   THE    ROMANISTS. 

ished ;  namely,  for  the  first  three  centuries  after  Christ,  and 
that  it  was  not  introduced  till  Christianity  was  established  under 
Constantine.  Whatever  may  be  thought  of  the  ingenuity  of 
this  excuse,  it  is  a  full  admission  that  it  was  no  part  or  prac- 
tice of  the  Church  of  Christ  in  its  earliest  and  purest  ages. 

Note. — They  sometimes  argue  from  Rev.  v.  8.  They  argue  here 
that  this  vision  represents  the  saints  in  heaven,  offering  up  the  prayers 
of  the  saints  on  earth.  The  answer  to  this  is,  that  it  is  by  no  means 
clear  that  this  is  the  meaning  of  the  passage  at  all  The  parties  are 
the  four  leasts  and  the  four-and-twenty  elders,  which,  when  more  care- 
fully rendered,  will  be  the  four  living  ones  and  the  four-and-twenty 
presbyters ; — the  four  living  ones  being  the  emblems  or  symbols  of 
the  four  great  empires  of  the  earth;  and  the  presbyters  being  the 
officials  or  ministers  of  the  Church  on  earth  :  so  that  the  vision  rather 
represents  the  triumph  of  Christianity,  when  the  four  empires  of  earth, 
once  pagan  persecutors,  shall  be  converted ;  and  with  the  ministry  of 
Christ's  Church  shall  present  their  prayers,  which  will  then  be  the 
prayers,  not  of  pagans,  but  of  Christians — not  of  unbelievers,  but  of 
saints  before  the  throne  of  God.  The  similar  passage  on  earth  in  Rev. 
viii.  3,  has  a  similar  solution.  The  prayers  of  "  saints"  are  the  prayers 
of  Christians  on  earth,  who  are  always  called  "  saints"  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament ;  and  these  prayers  are  here  described  as  presented  to  God  by 
the  great  angel — by  Him  who  is  the  Great  High  Priest  of  the  Church. 


-  L 


THE  VIRGIN  MAllY. 

The  Original  of  the  Worship  of  Mary — The  Symbols  of  Creation  among  the  Hea- 
then— "Whether  worshiped  as  a  Goddess  or  a  Woman — Inferior  Kinds  of  Wor- 
ship— Whether  her  Merits  are  pleaded  with  God — Whether  Slie  is  prayed  to  for 
her  own  Power — The  Sabbatine  Privilege — Her  Omnipotence  acconling  to  St. 
Alphonso  and  St.  Bernardine — She  is  placed  in  some  Devotional  Books  on  an 
equality  with  Christ — In  others  above  Him,  as  being  more  Merciful,  and  Prayers 
more  acceptable  through  her  than  through  Him — These  Devotional  Boolts  are 
authorized,  while  the  Holy  Scriptures  are  suppressad — The  Language  of  Holy 
Scripture  as  to  the  Virgin  Mary. 

The  distinctive  characteristic  of  the  Church  of  Rome  at  the 
present  day,  is  the  worship  of  the  Virgin  Mary  ;  not  that  it  is  a 
modern  invention,  but  that  it  has  of  late  years  assumed  a 
prominence,  all-pervading  and  all-absorbing,  which  it  had  not 
known  before.  I  once  remarked  to  an  ecclesiastic  in  the  city 
of  Rome,  that  it  appeared  to  me  that  the  religion  of  Christy  as 
received  in  that  city,  would  be  more  fitly  called  the  religion 
of  Mary.  He  replied,  approving  the  sentiment,  and  adding 
that  every  year  it  was  becoming  more  and  more  developed 

as THE  RELIGION  OF  MaRV  ! 

It  is  important,  therefore,  that  Ave  should  understand  some- 
thing of  the  nature  and  extent  of  this  worship. 

In  almost  all  the  devotional  books  of  the  Church  of  Rome 
the  Virgin  Mary  is  styled — the  mother  of  God,  and  in  most 
of  the  pictures  and  images  in  the  churches  she  is  crowned  and 
sceptered  and  enthroned  as — the  queen  of  heaven.  These 
titles  are  so  frequently  given  to  her,  that  they  are  regarded  as 
distinctively  belonging  to  her,  as  is  that  of — God  of  heaven,  to 
the  Almighty  himself. 

The  origin  of  this  is  far  deeper  than  a  mere  corruption  of 
Christianity.     It  has  its  roots  as  deep  and  as  universal  as 


246  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

human  nature.  It  originated  in  a  symbol — a  symbol  universal 
among  the  nations  in  the  darkness  of  heathenism.  The  ideal 
of  the  creative  or  productive  power  was  intimately  connected 
in  their  minds  with  the  idea  of  maternity.  It  was  a  power 
that  conceived  and  brought  forth,  and  in  ages  in  which  it  was 
thought  necessary  to  represent  the  creator  or  creative  power 
under  a  symbol,  it  was  not  unnatural  to  adopt  the  symbol  of 
a  WOMAN,  as  developing  this  idea  of  maternity.  Accordingly, 
in  almost  all  the  mythologies  of  ancient  times,  whether  in  the 
east  or  in  the  west,  there  was  a  female  divinity — a  goddess 
whose  maternity  was  worshiped.  In  one  mythology  it  was 
Astarte  of  the  Assyrians  ;  in  another  it  was  Ashtoreth  of  the 
Sidonians ;  in  another  it  was  Bawaney  of  the  Hindoos.  In 
the  classic  mythology  of  Greece  and  of  Rome,  eclectic  as  it 
was,  there  was  a  Venus  adopted  from  one,  and  a  Juno  from 
another.  It  is  said,  that  the  image  of  Diana  of  Epliesus 
was  that  of  a  female,  from  whose  body,  in  every  part,  there 
seemed  to  be  issuing  all  the  various  animals  of  creation,  sym- 
bolizing the  conception  and  production  of  all  things.  The 
Egyptians  on  one  hand,  and  the  Etruscans  on  the  other,  had 
their  Isis,  the  same  symbol,  a  female  divinity  whom  they  re- 
garded as  "  the  mother  of  the  gods." 

Even  the  Scandinavian  mythology  had  its  Freigha ;  and  of 
the  two  great  systems  of  religion  that  held  possession  of  the 
platform  of  the  Roman  Empire,  namely,  Judaism,  and  the 
classic  mythology,  the  latter  styled  its  Juno,  the  "  Queen  of 
Heaven,"  and  the  former,  when  corrupted  by  the  admixture 
of  the  heathenism  around  it,  was  charged  by  the  prophet 
Jeremiah,  with  having  also  its  "Queen  of  Heaven."  Jer.  vii. 
18,  and  Jer.  xHv.  17.  This  divinity  in  all  the  systems  had  a 
mysterious  and  indefinite  position.  Her  power  and  province 
were  left  very  much  to  the  imaginations  of  her  votaries ;  it 
would  seem  as  if  it  was  an  element  cono:enial  with  all  natural 
mythologies,  as  answering  some  impulse  or  feeling  in  the  fallen 
and  natural  heart,  that  there  should  be  the  embodiment  of 
some  such  idea — the  symbol  of  the  creation  or  production  of 
all  things,  enthroned  among  the  gods,  as  the  Queen  of  Heaven. 


THE    VIRGIN    MARY.  24*7 

Now  the  argument  against  the  Church  of  Rome  is,  that  she 
has  adopted  that  element  of  heathenism — that  instead  of  imi- 
tating the  prophet  Jeremiah  in  denouncing  this  worship 
among  the  Jews — instead  of  following  the  apostle  Paul  in 
opposing  it  among  the  Gentiles — instead  of  fighting  against 
this  tendency  of  the  people  of  the  Roman  Empire,  she  rather 
encouraged  it ;  and  though  perhaps  with  the  zealous  but  ill- 
regulated  desire  to  induce  a  more  easy  and  extended  profession 
of  Christianity,  she  allowed  the  easterns  to  accept  the  Virgin, 
instead  of  Astarte — their  former  queen  of  heaven,  and  per- 
mitted the  westerns  to  receive  Mary,  instead  of  Juno,  the 
queen  of  heaven  they  had  previously  worshiped.  It  is  not 
the  least  striking  fact  connected  with  this,  that  the  two  favor- 
ite titles  ascribed  to  Mary  in  the  Church  of  Rome — namely 
the  "  queen  of  Heaven,"  and  "  mother  of  God,"  are  the  very 
same  titles  ascribed  to  this  female  divinity — the  goddess  of 
the  ancients.  She  was  entitled  in  the  east — the  mother  of  the 
gods,  and  in  the  west — the  queen  of  heaven  !  But,  however 
it  originated,  there  is  no  doubt  that  Mary  is  now  as  much 
recognized  as  worshiped  in  the  Roman  Church,  as  was  the 
queen  of  heaven  in  the  wide  platform  of  the  Roman  Empire. 
In  all  its  essential  elements  the  Roman  Empire  and  the 
Roman  Church — the  Pagan  Rome,  and  the  Papal  Rome  are 
in  accord  in  this  matter.  The  transfer  to  Mary,  of  all  the  de- 
votion previously  paid  to  a  Juno,  an  Astarte,  an  Ashteroth,  or 
an  Isis,  does  not  alter  the  essence  of  the  thing.  It  is  as  much 
idolatry  to  worship  Mary,  as  it  was  to  worship  Juno,  as  the 
queen  of  heaven. 

There  are  persons  in  Italy  and  Spain  who  freely  and  readily 
admit  much  of  this,  and  say  that  the  prevalence  of  this  con- 
ception, of  a  female  divinity  among  so  many  ancient  mytholo- 
gies, was  as  it  were  the  dispersed  and  scattered  element  of  a 
coming  truth — a  sort  of  all-pervading  prophecy  or  anticipation 
of  a  future  reality — a  looking  into  the  depths  of  the  future, 
as  "  coming  events  cast  their  shadows  before,"  and  that  all 
was  to  be  fulfilled  in  the  exaltation  of  the  Virgin  Mother. 
They  imagine,  that  as  the  promise  of  a  Messiah  was  one* 


248  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

universally  spread  among  the  i'amilies  of  Noah,  and  as  it 
passed  by  tradition  through  many  generations,  so  the  woman, 
through  whom  He  was  to  come,  became  a  hope,  a  creation  in 
their  mythologies,  and  was  thus  the  great  archetype  of  all  these 
female  divinities  of  the  heathen  woidd.  Persons  who  believe 
this,  argue,  that  when  the  nations  lost  all  knowledge  of  the 
true  God,  and  created  false  gods  for  their  worship,  and  wor- 
shiped them  in  his  stead,  their  idolatry  consisted  not  in  their 
worship  of  a  god,  but  in  their  worshiping  a  false  one ;  and 
in  like  manner  the  idolatiy  of  the  heathen  was  not  their 
worshiping  a  female  divinity,  but  in  worshiping  these  that 
were  false,  instead  of  her  who  is  revealed  as  the  only  true  one 
— even  Maiy.  This  view  of  the  subject  is  a  favorite  one  iu 
countries  where  Mary  is  worshiped,  not  indeed  in  name  and 
title,  as  a  ffoddess,  but  with  all  the  same  reverence  and  devo- 
tion and  service  and  worship,  as  if  she  tvere  a  goddess.  There 
can  be  no  question  as  to  the  fact  that,  in  those  countries,  she 
is  the  divinity  prayed  to  more  frequently — loved  more  fervent- 
ly— worshiped  more  devoutly,  and  depended  on  more  en- 
tirely, than  either  God,  the  Son,  or  the  Holy  Spirit.  Whether 
the  Church  of  Rome  approves  of  this  is  another  question ; 
but  of  the  matter  of  fact,  there  can  be  no  doubt  whatever. 

All  tliis,  it  is  apparent,  only  makes  the  charge  of  idolatry 
more  strictly  and  painfully  applicable.  That  which  was  the 
religion  of  Christ  is  gradually  becoming  the  religion  of  Mary. 
And  in  these  countries  it  is  customary,  as  with  us,  to  speak  of 
the  religion  of  Christ,  so  with  them  to  speak  of  the  religion  of 
Mary. 

The  answer,  however,  which  they  usually  give  on  this  sub- 
ject is,  that  they  do  not  worship  Mary  as  a  goddess,  or  as  a 
divinity — that  they  regard  her  as  a  creature  ;  the  most  exalted 
of  all,  even  as  queen  of  angels  and  of  men,  but  a  creature  still 
— that  they  feel  as  strongly  as  ourselves  the  heinous  sin  of 
giving  divine  worship  to  a  creature — that  they  give  to  her  a 
difterent  worship — an  inferior  worship  to  that  which  they  give 
to  God.  And  that,  inasmuch  as  they  do  not  worship  her  as 
God  or  as  a  goddess,  they  are  not  liable  to  the  charge  of  idol- 


THE    VIRGIN    MARY.  249 

atiy,  whicli,  in  their  view,  consists  of  giving  to  a  creature  that 
kind  and  degree  of  worship  which  belongs  ouly  to  the  Creator. 

I  have  answered  this  by  reminding  them  that  our  charge 
against  the  Church  of  Rome,  was  not  that  she  worshiped  Mary 
as  a  goddess  ;  our  charge  was,  that  she  worshiped  her  as  a 
creature  ;  that  knowing  her  to  be  only  a  creature,  a  woman, 
she  worshiped  her  as  God  only  ought  to  be  worshiped.  If  the 
Church  of  Rome  regarded  her  as  a  goddess,  and  worshiped  her 
as  such,  it  would  at  least  be  consistent ;  but  regarding  her  as 
a  creature,  and  worshiping  her  as  a  woman,  with  a  religious 
worship  which  belongs  exclusively  to  God,  is  the  very  essence 
of  idolatry. 

I  have  often  asked  yet  further — wherein  consists  the  differ- 
ence between  the  ivorship  paid  to  Mary,  and  the  worship  ren- 
dered to  God  ?  The  ofleriug  prayer — the  presenting  hymns  of 
praise — the  making  solemn  vows — the  consecration  of  the 
votary  to  her  service — the  devoting  gifts  and  ofi'erings  of 
wealth — the  dedication  of  children— the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass 
— all  these  are  done  to  Mary,  and  in  honor  of  Mary,  as  well 
as  to  God,  and  in  honor  of  God.  They  pray  to  her  by  her 
sufferings  beneath  the  cross.  They  plead  her  merits  even  as 
they  do  those  of  Jesus  Christ.  And  therefore  I  ask — wherein 
consists  the  distinction  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  between  the 
worship  paid  to  Mary,  and  the  worship  paid  to  Ood  ? 

They  generally  answer  this  by  stating  tljat  there  are  two 
great  points  of  distinction  ;  that  these  are  so  marked  as  to 
place  the  two  kinds  and  degrees  of  worship  as  wide  as  the 
poles.  The  first  is,  that  they  never  pray  through  the  merits 
of  Mary,  but  only  through  the  merits  of  Christ ;  pleading  not 
the  merits  of  a  creature,  but  only  the  merits  of  Christ.  And 
secondly,  that  they  never  pray  to  Mary'as  if  she  could  grant 
any  thing  of  herself,  of  her  own  power,  as  if  she  could  grant 
any  blessing,  but  only  to  exert  her  influence  with  Jesus  Christ, 
that  He  may  grant  the  petition.  They  state  that  they  never 
pray  for  any  tiling  by  her  merits,  or  a.'k  her  to  grant  any  thing 
by  her  own  power. 

This  is  a  statement  of  fact,  and  must  be  examined  like  every 

11* 


250  EVENINGS   WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

assertion  of  fact,  and  accepted  or  rejected  according  to  the  evi- 
dence. 

The  right  and  just  course  in  such  an  investigation  is  to  hj 
aside  the  private  statements  or  practices  of  individuals,  and  to 
open  the  devotional  books — the  prayer-books  in  use  in  the 
Church  of  Rome  and  especially  those  that  are  the  authorized 
formularies  of  that  Ci.  Tch. 

Is  it  a  fact  that  in  the  Church  of  Rome  they  do  not  pray 
through  the  merits  of  the  Virgin  Mary  ? 

I.  The  following  is  the  form  of  absolution  as  given  in  "  The 
Ursuline  Manual" — a  book  in  very  general  use  among  the 
Roman  Catholics  of  EnHand  : 

"  I  absolve  thee  from  all  thy  sins  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Amen.  May  the 
passion  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  merits  of  the  blessed 
Virgin  Mary^  and  of  all  the  saints,  may  whatever  good  thou 
shalt  do,  or  whatever  evil  thou  shalt  suffer,  be  to  thee  unto 
the  remission  of  thy  sins,  the  increase  of  grace  and  the  recom- 
pense of  life  everlasting.     Amen."     Edition  of  1835,  p.  159. 

II.  In  the  "  brief  account  of  the  Virgin  Mary  of  Mount 
Carmel,"  published  in  Ireland,  France,  and  Rome,  is  the  fol- 
lowing explanation  of  an  indulgence. 

"  It  is  a  grace  by  the  means  of  which,  some  condition  being 
annexed  by  the  person  granting  it,  are  remitted  the  penances, 
which  should  otherwise  be  done  in  this  world  or  in  Purgatory, 
for  the  actual  sins  already  remitted  through  the  infinite  merits 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  of  the  blessed  Virgin  MaryT 

III.  In  the  "  collection  of  prayers  and  pious  works  to  which 
indulgences  are  attached,"  published  with  authority  at  Rome, 
1844,  p.  8,  we  read  as  follows  : 

"  This  is  a  treasure,*  which  continues  forever  in  the  light  of 
God,  the  treasure  of  the  merits  and  satisfaction  of  Jesus  Christ, 
of  the  most  Blessed  Virgin  Mary  ....  Jesus  Christ  together 
with  his  superabundant  passion  left  to  the  Church  militant  on 
earth  an  infinite  treasure,  not  deposited  in  a  measure  of  meal 
or  buried  in  a  field,  but  committed  to  the  Church  to  be  dis- 
pensed in  a  wholesome  way  to  the  faithful  by  the  blessed 


THE    VIRGIN    MARY,  251 

Peter,  who  holds  the  key  of  heaven,  and  by  his  successors  the 
Vicars  of  Jesus  Christ  on  earth.  To  the  abundance  of  this 
treasure,  the  merits  of  the  blessed  Virgin  Mary  assist  as  a 
help." 

IV.  "  The  Wonders  of  God,"  was  published  in  Kome,  1841, 
and  in  Part  I.,  and  Wonder  23,  the  following  is  related  with 
approval,  of  the  Prioress  of  St.  Martin's  at  Milan. 

"  She  was  accustomed  to  pray  for  the  grace  of  the  liberation 
(of  the  souls  in  Purgatory)  through  the  merits  of  the  most 
precious  blood  of  the  Saviour,  and  through  the  ardent  love 
which  He  had  shown  on  the  cross.  To  this  prayer  she  gave 
new  eflSca'cy  by  asking  this  grace  through  the  merits  of  the 
Divine  Mother,  especially  through  the  sufferings  she  endured 
at  the  foot  of  the  cross." 

V.  In  "  The  Missal,"  published  in  England  for  the  use  of  the 
Laity,  1836,  p.  527,  there  is  the  following  prayer  to  be  used 
in  a  votive  mass. 

"  O  God,  who  by  the  most  glorious  mother  of  thy  Son, 
wast  pleased  to  appoint  a  new  order  in  thy  Church  for  deliver- 
ing the  faithful  out  of  the  hands  of  the  infidels,  grant,  we 
beseech  thee,  that  we  may  also  be  delivered  from  the  slavery 
of  the  devil,  by  her  merits  and  prayers,  whom  we  devoutly 
honor  in  the  instruction  of  so  charitable  a  work." 

VI.  In  "  The  Roman  Breviary,"  in  the  winter  portion  and 
in  the  office  of  Mary,  is  the  following  prayer. 

"  May  the  Lord  conduct  us  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven  by 
the  prayers  and  merits  of  the  blessed  ever-  Virgin  Mary  and 
all  the  saintsP 

VII.  In  the  service  of  the  Mass,  in  what  is  called  "  the  or- 
dinary of  the  Mass,"  the  priest  bows  to  the  altar  and  prays — 
I  cite  their  own  EngUsh  translation — 

"  We  beseech  thee  by  the  merits  of  thy  saints,  whose  relics 
are  here,  and  of  all  thy  saints,  that  thou  wouldest  vouchsafe 
to  forgive  me  all  my  sins.     Amen." 

VIII.  Again  in  the  same,  after  they  commemorate  the 
living,  the  priest  goes  on  : 

"  Communicating  with  and  honoring,  in  the  first  place,  the 


252  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

memory  of  the  ever-glorious  Virgin  Mary,  mother  of  our 
Lord  and  God  Jesus  Christ,  as  also  of  his  blessed  apostles  and 
martyrs — through  whose  merits  and  prayers,  grant  that  we 
may  be  always  defended  by  the  help  of  thy  protection,  through 
the  same  Christ  our  Lord.  Amen." 

These  eight  illustrations,  sad  and  painful  as  they  are,  might 
be  multiphed  indefinitely  from  the  Breviary,  the  Missal,  and 
the  ordinary  books  of  devotion.  They  set  at  rest  the  question, 
as  to  whether  the  Roman  Catholics  pray  through  the  merits  of 
the  Virgin  Mary.  They  seem  not  content  with  the  infinitely 
precious  merits  of  Christ,  but  require  also  the  merits  of  Mary  ! 
there  is  nothing  more  heart-saddening  than  this  :  for  there  is 
nothing  more  dishonoring  to  the  merits  of  the  Saviour,  or  so 
revolting  to  the  spirit  of  a  true  Christianity.  It  is  as  if  the 
merits  of  Jesus  Christ  were  not  adequate — as  if  they  needed 
the  merits  of  Mary — as  if  the  Creator  needed  the  creature  ! 

There  is  a  second  averment.  It  is  to  the  effect  that  thoucrh 
they  pray  to  Mary,  it  is  only  for  her  intercession,  and  that 
they  never  su2:»230se  that  she  has  any  power  or  can  herself  do 
any  thing,  but  only  that  she  intercedes  for  those  that  pray  to 
her. 

This  likewise  is  a  question  of  fact,  and  must  be  determined, 
not  by  the  statement  of  an  individual  as  to  his  own  belief  or 
practice,  but  by  evidence. 

In  illustrating  this  from  their  books,  there  is  not  the  least 
difficulty  except  from  the  abundance  of  evidence,  and  still 
more  in  the  grief  and  sorrow  that  every  holy  mind  will  feel  in 
the  perusal  of  their  language. 

One  illustration  is  from  a  Avork  published  in  these  countries, 
and  most  widely  circulated.  It  is  entitled  "  A  Brief  Account  of 
Indulgences,  etc.,  conferred  on  the  Order,  etc.,  of  the  Virgin 
Mary  of  Mount  Carmel."     Dublin,  1826,  p.  13. 

"  The  affection  of  an  earthly  mother  bears  no  proportion  to 
that  of  the  Virgin,  who,  to  show  herself  truly  the  mother  of 
those  who  wear  her  holy  scapular,  did  not  rest  fully  satisfied 
with  having  preserved  them  from  bodily  harm,  and  kept  them 
out  of  hell,  as  far  as  lies  in  her,  through  the  mediation  of  her 


THE    VIRGIN    MARY.  253 

powerful  protection,  but  also  promised  as  a  truly  loving 
mother,  not  enduring  tlie  sight  of  her  dear  and  beloved  chil- 
dren suffering  in  the  flames  of  Purgatory,  that  she  would  free 
them  as  soon  as  possible,  particularly  on  the  first  Saturday 
after  their  death,  as  being  a  day  set  aside  for  her  honor,  and 
bring  them  to  eternal  joy  in  Paradise." 

The  whole  is  minutely  related,  and  confirmed  by  Pope 
John  XXII.  in  the  Bull  published  in  March,  1822. 

Again,  in  order  that  the  authority  for  all  this  may  be 
clearly  seen  and  received  by  the  members  of  the  Order,  they 
are  informed  not  only  of  the  grant  of  this  Bull  of  Pope  John 
XXII.  but  of  its  confirmation  by  no  less  than  four  subsequent 
popes.     It  continues, 

"  This  extraordinary  Bull,  called  '  The  Sabbatine,'  was  con- 
firmed in  1412,  by  the  Sovereign  Pontifi",  Alexander  V.  by 
another  Bull,  which  commences,  Tenore  cujusdam  Privilegii, 
and  by  Clement  VII.  in  his  Apostolic  Bull  given  in  favor  of 
the  Carmelites,  in  1524,  the  first  words  of  which  are  Dilecti 
filii,  which,  after  recounting  the  indulgences  and  privileges 
given  to  these,  continues  thus,  '  And  on  their  departure  from 
this  life,  the  glorious  Virgin  mother  of  God  herself,  will,  on 
the  Saturday  succeeding  the  death  of  the  members,  whether 
brother  monks,  or  sister  nuns,  visit  them,  and  free  their  souls 
from  the  punishment  of  Purgatory.'  Pius  V.  confirmed  their 
privilege,  in  a  Bull  in  1560,  and  the  Sovereign  Pontiftj  Greg- 
ory, in  a  Bull  in  1577,  which  contains  a  confirmation  of  all 
favors,  indulgences,  and  privileges  of  the  Carmelite  order, 
specifying  the  day  to  be  Saturday,  in  conformity  with  the 
revelation  of  the  Virgin,  etc." 

This  descent  of  the  Virgin  into  Purgatory,  apparently  de- 
signed as  a  set-off  or  parallel  to  our  Lord's  supposed  descent 
to  the  same  region,  is  not  only  published  in  these  countries, 
but  also  published  with  authority  at  Rome  itself,  during  the 
time  of  Gregory  XVI.  The  following  is  from  the  "  Wonders 
of  God."     Rome,  1841,  vol.  ii.  p.  31. 

"  Among  the  other  devotions  to  the  Queen  of  Heaven, 
which  give  great  hope,  and  promise  the  precious  grace  of 


254  EVENINGS    WITH   THE    ROMANISTS. 

rising  quickly  from  tlie  sufferings  of  Purgatory  and  passing 
away  to  the  joys  of  heaven,  the  principle  is  that  which  is  com- 
monly called  that  of  ^^ fount  Carmel — especially  in  the  Bull, 
called  "  The  Sahbatin.\"  and  in  the  decree  of  the  Sacred  Con- 
gregation, they  assert,  that  the  most  Blessed  Virgin,  is  ascer- 
tained to  concede  to  the  professors  of  this  devotion — the  lib- 
eration from  Purgatory,  to  their  great  relief  from  punishment, 
on  the  first  Saturday  after  their  death." 

Here  is  the  Bull  of  one  Pope  confirmed  by  four  Bulls  from 
four  subsequent  popes,  and  republished  by  Gregory  XVI.  in 
1841,  teaching  that  the  Virgin  Mary  herself  visits  Purgatory 
every  Saturday  and  releases  certain  privileged  persons.  The 
extent  of  the  Order  of  the  Scapular,  or  as  they  are  usually 
called,  Carmelites,  and  Scapularians,  is  demonstrative  of  the 
extent  of  faith  in  the  reality  of  this  ;  and  as  it  is  impossible  to 
call  this  the  mtercession  of  Mary — as  it  can  only  be  regarded 
as  her  own  act — the  act  of  descending  to  Purgatory — the  act 
of  saving  from  its  sufferings — the  act  of  bringing  the  souls 
thence  to  Heaven,  proves  the  belief  of  her  having  power  in 
herself  to  do  these  things.  It  is  evidently  not  her  asking  her 
Son,  or  interceding  with  him  to  do  them,  but  she  does  them 
herself. 

The  following  illustrates  the  full  extent  of  the  power  she  is 
supposed  to  possess,  not  indeed  inherently,  but  by  cession 
from  her  Son.  We  read  in  "  The  Glories  of  Mary,"  by  Saint 
Alphonso  de  Liguori : 

"St.  Bernardine  of  Sienna  does  not  fear  to  advance  that 
all,  even  God  himself,  is  subject  to  the  empire  of  Mary.  The 
saint  wishes  to  insinuate  thereby,  that  God  hears  Mary's 
prayers,  as  if  they  were  commands.  The  Lord,  0  Mary,  says 
St.  Anselm,  has  so  exalted  you  that  his  favor  has  rendered 
you  omnipotent !  yes,  says  Richard  of  St.  Lawrence,  Mary  is 
omnipotent,  for  according  to  all  laws  the  queen  enjoys  the 
SAME  PRIVILEGES  as  the  king,  and  that  power  may  be  equal 
between  the  Son  and  the  mother.  Jesus  has  rendered  Mary 
omnipotent  ;  the  one  is  omnipotent  by  nature,  the  other  is 
omnipotent  by  grace,"  c.  vi.  sec.  1. 


THE    VIRGIN    MARY.  255 

There  is  here  an  ascriptiou  of  the  Divine  attribute  of  mo- 
NXPOTENCE  to  Mary.  There  is  also  an  assertion  of  an  equal- 
ity in  "privilege"  and  in  "power"  with  Jesus  Christ.  There 
is  also  a  statement  that  God  himself  is  subject  to  the  empire 
of  Mary.  As  this  awful  statement  professes  to  be  founded  on 
a  saying  of  Saint  Bernardine,  the  original  words  may  here  be 
cited.     The  words  of  Saint  Bernardine  are  these : 

"  As  many  creatures  serve  the  glorious  Virgin  Mary  as 
serve  the  Trinity,  namely,  all  created  things,  whatsoever  de- 
gree they  may  hold  in  creation,  whether  spiritual  as  angels, 
or  rational  as  men,  or  corporeal  as  the  heavenly  bodies  or  the 
elements.  And  all  things  that  are  in  Heaven  and  in  earth, 
whether  they  be  the  damned  or  the  blessed,  all  lohich  are 
brought  under  the  government  of  God^  are  likewise  subject  to 
the  glorious  Virgin.  Forasmuch  as  He,  who  is  the  Son  of 
God,  and  of  the  blessed  Virgin,  wishing  to  7nake  the  sovereignty 
of  his  mother  equal  in  some  sort  to  the  sovereignty  of  his 
Father,  even  He,  who  was  God,  served  his  mother  on  earth. 
Whence,  Luke  ii.  51,  it  is  written  of  the  Virgin  and  the 
glorious  Joseph,  '  He  was  subject  unto  them,'  that  as  this 
proposition  is  true — all  things  are  subject  to  the  command  of 
God,  even  the  Virgin  herself,  so  this  again  is  also  true — all 
things  are  subject  to  the  command  of  the  Virgin^  even  God 
himself." 

These  ..words  make  the  government  of  the  Virgin  co-exten- 
sive with  the  government  of  God.  They  also  expressly  state 
that  Christ  has  willed  the  sovereignty  of  the  Mother  to  be 
equal  with  the  sovereignty  of  the  Father.  They  also  state 
that  as  the  Virgin  is  subject  unto  God,  so  it  is  equally  true 
that  God  is  subject  to  the  Virgin  ! 

These  are  the  sentiments  of  Saint  Bernardino  and  Saint 
Alphonso  de  Liguori.  And  in  the  act  of  canonization  of  the 
saints,  it  is  declared  by  the  Church  of  Rome,  that  there  is  no 
error  contained  in  their  writings.  These  words,  therefore,  are 
pronounced  to  be  free  from  error  !  And  yet  a  Christian  can 
not  read  them  without  inexpressible  sadness  and  dread. 

This  system  of  placing  Mary  practically  on  an  equality  with 


266  EVENINGS    WITH   THE    ROMANISTS. 

Christ  is  carried  out  in  a  variety  of  ways.  The  following 
prayer  is  a  well-known  instance  : 

"  Jesus,  Mary,  and  Joseph,  have  mercy  on  us. 

"  Jesus,  Mary,  and  Joseph,  receiv^e  my  last  breath. 

"  Jesus,  Mary,  and  Joseph,  receiv^e  me  now  and  in  the  hour 
of  death." 

Another  illustration  is  in  the  closing  words  of  "  The  Glories 
of  Mary." 

"  0  Jesus !  O  Mary !  may  your  names  live  in  my  heart  and 
in  the  hearts  of  all  men !  may  I  forget  all  other  names  in 
order  to  remember  your  admirable  names  alone  !  O  Jesus, 
my  Redeemer !  O  Mary,  my  Mother  !  when  my  last  hour 
shall  come,. when  my  soul  shall  be  at  the  eve  of  its  departure 
from  the  world,  grant,  I  beseech  you,  that  my  last  words  may 
be — Jesus  !  Mary  !  I  love  you  !  Jesus  !  Mary  !  I  give  you 
my  heart  and  my  soul.     Amen." 

This  certainly  places  Mary  on  an  equality  with  Christ  as 
one  to  be  prayed  to,  invoked,  and  loved  alike.  The  Spanish 
form  of  the  doxology  is  still  more  striking : 

"  Glory  be  to  the  Father. 

"  Glory  be  to  the  Son. 

"  Glory  be  to  the  Holy  Ghost. 

"  Glory  be  to  the  Most  Holy  Virgin. 

"  Throughout  all  ages,  forever  and  ever.     Amen  !"  * 

It  is  due  to  many  Roman  Catholics  of  the  laity,  to"  say  that 
I  have  never  read  these  and  similar  passages  from  the  de- 
votional books  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  while  conversing  with 
her  members,  without  observing  shame  and  confusion  in  the 
feces  of  my  opponents.  It  is  the  homage  they  are  forced  to 
pay  to  truth.  It  is  always  apparent  that  they  feel  such  lan- 
guage to  be  blasphemous  and  idolatrous ;  or,  at  least,  that  it 
approaches  thereto — that  it  justifies  the  strong  feeling  that 
we  manifest  against  the  practice ;  that  such  language  com- 
pletely cuts  away  the  ground  under  their  feet ;  and  it  comes 
before  them  vexatiously  when  arguing  with  us  ;  and  they  have 

*  See  Meyrick's  "  Working  of  the  Church  iu  Spain." 


THE    VIRGIN    MART.  257 

no  answer  or  explanation  further  than,  that  these  passages 
have  a  meaning  widely  ditferent  from  what  they  seem  to  con 
vey — that  they  ar>  to  be  understood  in  what  they  call  a  Catho- 
lic sense — that  a  Catholic  reads  them  with  a  Catholic  sense; 
and  that  they  do  no  harm  to  one  who  knows  that,  however 
idolatrous  and  blasphemous  the  language  may  seem,  yet  it  is 
not  to  be  understood  in  that  sense.  I  have  asked  what  that 
Catholic  sense  was,  and  I  never  could  learn  it.  It  certainly 
must  be  something  very  diiferent  from  the  natural  construc- 
tion of  the  words. 

I  have  pressed  this  matter  further  ;  I  have  asserted  that  in 
these  books  they  not  only  place  Mai^  sometimes  on  an  equal- 
ity with  Christ,  but  sometimes  above  him. 

And  first  for  placing  her  on  an  equality  with  Christ. 

I  can  never,  while  I  live,  forget  the  shock  I  received  when 
I  first  saw  in  their  churches  in  Italy  the  Virgin  Mary  crowned 
as  Queen  of  Heaven,  seated  on  the  same  throne  with  Jesus 
crowned  as  King. of  Heaven.  They  were  the  God-man  and 
the  God-woman  enthroned  alike.  In  all  my  previous  experi- 
ence of  Romanism  it  never  occurred  to  me  for  a  moment  that 
any  thing  so  truly  awful  could  possibly  have  been  perpetrated. 
I  felt  the  shock  ;  every  holy  feeling  felt  its  violence ;  no 
heathen  idolatry  could  have  done  more.  There  were  Jesus 
and  Mary,  crowned  alike,  enthroned  alike,,  bearing  a  scepter 
alike.  There  was  nothing  to  distinguish  one  above  the  other. 
They  appeared  precisely  like  a  Jupiter  and  Juno,  like  a  man 
and  wi»fe,  hke  a  king  and  queen.  And  I  loathed  in  my  soul 
such  representations,  as  elevating  the  creature  Mary  to  a  level 
with  the  God  Christ,  or  lowering  the  God  Christ  to  a  level 
with  the  creature  Mary.  It  made  them  both  on  an  equality. 
They  were  god  and  goddess,  or  they  were  merely  man  and 
woman.  I  soon  found  that  this  pervaded  the  whole  region 
of  Italy.  However  kindly  I  might  be  disposed  to  interpret  or 
explain,  and  howevery  gently  I  might  be  disposed  to  judge,  I 
could  not  shut  my  eyes  or  ears  to  the  evidence  that  there  was 
a  manifest  tendency  to  exalt  Mary  to  a  level  with  Jesus,  that 
she  should  be  crowned,  sceptered,  and  enthroned  alike,  and 


258  EVENINGS   WITH   THE    ROMANISTS. 

t 

that  she  should  be  loved  and  served  and  worshiped  alike,  and 
that  Christianity  should  be  made  the  religion  of  Mary  as  well 
as  the  relio-ion  of  Christ.* 

But  this  was  by  no  means  the  only  or  most  sad  evidence  of 
an  equality.  It  is  painful — it  is  saddening,  to  commit  the 
dark  and  dreary  reality  to  paper.  It  is  enough  to  freeze  the 
blood  of  any  Christian  man  ;  and  yet  it  is  the  common,  I  may 
say,  the  universal  faith  of  Southern  Europe.  It  is  this  :  what- 
ever were  the  mysteries  or  glories  connected  with  the  mir- 
aculous conception,  the  miraculous  birth,  the  miraculous 
resurrection,  the  miraculous  ascension ;  whatever  were  the 
mysteries  of  wonder  and  of  awe  in  the  history  of  Jesus  Christ, 
they  are  all  copied  or  rather  travestied  and  applied  to  the 
Virgin  Mary  ;  so  as  that  she  may  appear  as  wondrous  a  person 
as  Jesus  Christ,  as  having  been  characterized  by  an  immacul- 
ate conception  as  miraculous,  a  birth  as  wonderful,  a  resur- 
rection as  marvelous,  and  an  ascension  or  assumption  as 
glorious.  Whatever  were  the  miracles  of  awe  and  of  mys- 
tery and  of  glory  connected  with  one,  are  claimed  and  attrib- 
uted to  the  other.  And  to  such  an  extent  is  this  carried,  that 
in  some  of  their  churches  the  paintings  on  one  side  represent 
the  striking  incidents  that  give  wonder  to  the  birth  and  life 
and  death  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  on  the  other  side  the  very  same 
or  similar  incidents  as  characteristic  of  the  birth  and  life  and 
death  of  the  Virgin  Mary.  For  example,  if  on  one  side  of  the 
church  there  is  painted  the  angel  announcing  to  Mary  the 
miraculous  conception  of  Jesus,  it  is  paralleled  by  another  on 
the  other  side,  representing  an  angel  announcing  to  Anna  the 
immaculate  conception  of  Mary.  If  there  be  on  one  side  the 
miraculous  birth  and  the  infency  of  the  Son,  there  will  be  on 

*  In  the  Baptistery  of  Parma  there  is  a  representation  of  the  Trinity. 
At  the  top  of  the  triangle  is  the  Father.  At  the  two  angles  of  the 
base  are  the  Son  and  the  Mother ;  the  two  arms  of  the  Father  resting 
on  the  heads  of  the  Son  and  Mary,  form  the  legs  of  the  triangle  ;  while 
the  arms  of  the  Son,  extended  to  the  head  of  Mary,  form  the  base.  I 
looked  at  it  with  horror  1  The  Sacristan  smiled,  and  called  it  the 
Trinity  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Virgin. 


THE   VIRGIN    MARY,  259 

tlie  other  the  birth  and  infancy  of  the  mother.  If  here  there 
is  a  representation  of  the  reception  of  the  child  Jesus  by  the 
High  Priest  in  the  temple,  there  is  another  representing  the 
presentation  of  the  child  Mary  under  similar  circumstances. 
In  one  compartment  there  may  be  seen  represented  the  death 
of  the  Saviour,  and  opposite  may  be  seen  in  another  compart- 
ment a  representation  of  all  connected  with  the  death  of  the 
Virgin.  Here  we  see  portrayed  all  connected  with  the  resur- 
rection of  the  Lord,  and  there  we  see  in  like  manner  all  the 
apocryphal  details  of  the  resurrection  of  the  Motlier.  On  one 
side  may  be  seen  all  that  human  art  can  do  to  exhibit  the 
glories  of  the  ascension  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  on  the  other  side 
all  that  the  most  exquisite  art  can  accomplish  to  represent  the 
glories  of  the  assumption  of  Maiy.  Here  the  eye  is  arrested 
to  see  the  paintings  of  Jesus  Christ  entering  the  heavens  and 
enthroned  and  crowned  as  the  King  of  Heaven,  and  there  the 
eye  is  attracted  to  another  painting  of  Mary  entering  the 
heavens  and  enthroned  and  crowned  as  Queen  of  Heaven.  In 
all  the  miracles  and  mysteries  of  His  life,  she  is  placed  on  a 
level  with  Him.  If  she  is  not  the  rival,  she  certainly  is  the 
equal  in  every  wonder  and  mystery.  And,  therefore,  in  one 
half  the  churches  of  Italy,  Mary  may  be  seen  crowned  with  a 
like  crown,  seated  on  the  same  throne,  and  holding  a  similar 
scepter  with  Jesus  Christ.  It  is  impossible  to  see  all  this  and 
not  feel  that  it  embodies  an  item  in  the  popular  faith  of  the 
Church  of  Rome  ;  and  that  she,  in  authorizing  these  pictures 
in  her  churches,  does  authorize  the  notion,  so  prevalent,  that 
the  Virgin  Mary  is  the  equal  of  Jesus  Christ ;  not,  indeed,  in 
the  essence  of  her  nature,  but  in  something-  which  she  has  never 
defined,  and  which  is  left  to  the  imaginations  of  her  votaries. 
The  Church  of  Rome  has  taken  away  the  Holy  Scriptures, 
and  has  given  these  pictures  to  the  people  in  their  stead.  God 
gave  the  Holy  Scriptures  to  teach  the  people,  and  the  Church 
of  Rome  has  taken  them  away,  on  the  gi'ound  that  the  people 
might  mistake  their  meaning ;  and  she  has  given  in  their 
stead  these  pictures,  which  are  still  more  liable  to  lead  them 
astray.     God  has  permitted  no  error  in  that  Book  which  He 


260  EVENINGS    WITH   THE    ROMANISTS. 

has  given ;  and  tlie  Church  of  Rome  was  bound  to  see  that 
there  was  no  error  in  these  pictures  which  she  has  substituted 
for  them.  The  truth  is,  that  the  Holy  Scriptures  do  not  teach 
the  doctrines  of  Rome,  and  therefore  she  has  removed  them ; 
while  those  pictures  do  teach  her  unscriptural  tenets;  and 
therefore  she  allows  them.  The  people  naturally  think  that 
what  is  permitted  to  be  seen  in  the  Church  is  authorized  by 
the  Church.  These  pictures  come  before  them  with  all  the 
apparent  sanction  of  the  Church  ;  and  no  one  can  be  sur- 
prised that,  seeing  them,  they  regard  Maiy  as  equal  with 
Jesus  Christ. 

I  have  sometimes  called  the  attention  of  my  Roman  Cath- 
olic friends  to  the  practice  in  the  Church  of  Rome  of  taking 
those  passages  of  the  Holy  Scripture  which  are  applicable 
only  to  Jesus  Christ,  and  applying  them  to  Mary  ;  and  even 
going  so  far  as  to  apply  to  her  the  distinctive  titles  that  be- 
long to  Him.  In  the  devotional  books  of  that  Church,  even 
in  her  authorized  litanies,  as  the  litany  of  the  Virgin,  the  very 
titles  that  in  Holy  Scripture  are  applied  to  Jesus  Christ  are 
addressed  to  her.  In  the  Holy  Scripture  He  is  styled  "  the 
Advocate  with  the  Father ;"  in  those  books  she  is  addressed 
as  "  our  advocate."  If  in  Holy  Scripture  He  is  called  "  the 
one  Mediator,"  in  these  books  she  is  called  "  our  mediator,  or 
mediatrix."  If  in  Holy  Scripture  He  is  described  as  "  the 
Door,"  or  Gate,  in  these  books  she  is  designated  as  "  the 
gate."  If  in  Holy  Scripture  He  is  described  as  the  "  Refuge 
for  sinners,"  in  these  books  she  is  likewise  declared  to  be  the 
refuge  for  sinners.  If  in  the  word  of  God  He  is  called  "  the 
Father  of  mercies,"  she  is  styled  in  these  books  "  the  mother 
of  mercy."  If  in  Holy  Scriptures  He  is  "  our  Saviour,"  in 
these  books  she  is  also  designated  "  our  saviour."  If  He  is 
styled  in  Scripture  "  the  Good  Shepherd,"  she  is  called  "  the 
divine  shepherdess."  If  He  is  "  our  Lord,"  she  is  "  our  lady  ;" 
and  if  He  is  the  "  King  of  Heaven,"  she  is  proclaimed  the 
"  queen  of  heaven."  She  is  thus,  as  far  as  the  language  of 
Holy  Scripture  goes,  placed  on  an  equality  with  Him ;  and 
although  they  profess  not  to  mean  or  intend  this,  yet  it  ia 


THE    VIRGIN    MARY.  261  " 

enougt  that  they  do  it,  and  that  every  one  who  reads  their 
devotional  books  may  see  it,  and  read  it  for  themselves. 

And  not  only  this  :  they  have  gone  fm'ther ;  for  in  the  well- 
known  Psalter  of  Saint  Bonaventiira,  a  portion  of  which  was 
republished  with  authority  in  Rome,  in  1844,  every  prayer, 
every  blessing,  every  thanksgiving  that  the  sacred  Psalmist 
addressed  to  G»d,  is  altered  and  adapted  to  the  Virgin  Mary,, 
as  being  to  be  ascribed  to  her,  and  prayed  of  her.  The  title 
"  God"  is  omitted,  and  "  Mary"  substituted  for  it.  The  title 
"  Lord"  is  removed,  and  "  lady"  inserted  in  its  stead.  The 
awful  character  of  this  blasphemy  and  sacrilege  can  only  be 
understood  by  examples.  Even  the  Lord's  prayer  is  altered 
and  addressed  to  her — "  Our  lady  who  art  in  heaven,  hallowed 
be  thy  name,"  etc. ;  and  the  Te  Deum  is  changed  and  ad- 
dressed to  her — "  We  praise  thee,  O  Mary ;  we  acknowledge 
thee  to  be  the  lady,"  etc. 

And  now,  as  to  elevating  Mary  above  Christ. 

These  devotional  books  proceed  further.  If  they  sometimes 
elevate  Mary  to  be  the  equal  with  Christ,  they  also  sometimes 
elevate  her  beyond  and  above  Him  in  all  the  attributes  of 
mercy  and  love.  I  have  myself  been  witness  to  this  ;  for  in 
my  conversations  with  the  priests  at  Rome,  they  repeatedly 
asserted  that  as  Christ  was  the  Judge  who  must  deal  justic-:-, 
and  as  Mary  was  the  "  mother  of  mercy,"  who  could  exercisfe 
pity  and  love ;  so  it  was  better  for  us  to  pray  through  her 
than  through  Christ ; — that  His  nature  and  characteristic  was 
justice  and  not  mercy  ;  and  that  hers  was  mercy  and  not  jus- 
tice :  and  that  God  heard  those  prayers .  sooner  which  were 
offered  through  her,  than  those  that  were  offered  throufjh 
Him.  This  belief  is  prevalent  now  universally  in  the  south 
of  Europe. 

The  following  passage  from  "  The  Glories  of  Mary"  will  il- 
lustrate this  in  their  own  words,  c.  4.  sec.  1. 

"  In  order  to  increase  our  confidence  in  Mary,  Saint  An- 
selm  assures  us  that  our  prayers  will  often  he  more  speedily 
heard  in  invoicing  her  name^  than  in  calling  on  that  of  Jesus 
Christ ;  and  the  reason  he  assigns  is,  that  Jesus  being  no  less 


262  EVENINGS    WITH   THE    ROMANISTS. 

our  Judge  than  our  Saviour,  he  must  avenge  the  wrongs  we 
do  him  by  our  sins.  While  the  Holy  Virgin  being  solely  our 
advocate,  is  obliged  to  entertain  only  sentiments  of  pity  for  us. 
We  are  far  from  insinuating,  nevertheless  that  she  is  more 
powerful  than  her  son ;  Jesus  Christ  is  our  only  Mediator,  H€ 
alone  has  obtained  our  reconciliation  Avith  God  the  Father , 
but  as  in  rendering  to  Him,  whom  we  must  necessarily  con- 
sider a  judge  who  will  punish  the  ungrateful,  it  is  probable  a 
sentiment  of  fear  may  lesson  the  confidence  necessary  for  be- 
ing heard,  it  would  seem  that  in  applying  to  Mary,  whose  of- 
fice is  that  of  mercy,  our  hope  would  be  so  strong  as  to  obtain 
all  we  ask  for.  Jloto  is  it,  that  whereas  we  ask  many  things 
of  God  without  obtaining  them,  ive  no  sooner  ask  through  Mary 
than  they  are  granted  us  .^" 

This  assuredly  is  strong  language,  and  as  strange  as  it  is 
strong.  It  plainly  teaches,  that  prayers  presented  through. 
Mary  are  more  readily  heard  than  prayers  presented  through 
Jesus  Christ.  It  is  practically  dashing  the  Mediatorial  crown 
from  the  brow  of  Jesus,  and  hurling  Him  from  the  Mediatorial 
throne  ;  and  as  a  greater  blasphemy  could  not  be  uttered,  so 
a  greater  sacrilege  could  not  be  committed  by  man  or  devil. 
But  it  does  not  stand  alone.  Let  the  following  speak  for  it^ 
self. 

"  We  read  in  the  chronicles  of  St.  Francis,  that  brother  Leo 
once  saw  in  a  vision,  two  ladders,  one  red,  on  the  summit  of 
which  was  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  other  white,  on  the  top  of 
which  presided  his  blessed  Mother.  He  observed  that  many 
who  endeavored  to  ascend  the  first  ladder,  after  mounting  a 
few  steps,  fell  down.  And  on  trying  again  were  equally  un- 
successful, so  that  they  never  attained  the  summit.  But  a 
voice  having  told  them  to  make  trial  of  the  white  ladder,  they 
soon  gained  the  top,  the  blessed  Virgin  having  held  forth  her 
hands  to  help  them."  c.  8.  sec.  3. 

These  are  the  words  of  Saint  Alphonso,  in  whose  writings 
it  is  asserted  that  there  are  no  errors.  And  these  words  are 
from  that  very  book  of  which  a  new  edition  has  been  publish- 
ed, with  the  authority  and  recommendation  of  Cardinal  Wise- 


THE    VIRGIN    MART.  263 

man.  And  yet  these  words  plainly  teach  that  those  who  seek 
to  enter  heaven  by  Jesus  Christ  "never  attain  the  summit," 
while  those  who  approach  through  the  Virgin  Mary  "  soon 
reach"  their  place  of  glory  ! 

It  is  jilainly  implied  by  the  former  extract,  that  Mary  is 
more  accessible,  more  pitiful,  more  merciful  than  Jesus  Christ; 
at  least  that  He  is  a  Judge  to  avenge,  and  she  is  an  advocate  to 
compassionate — that  He  is  all  justice,  and  she  is  all  mercy — 
and  that  our  prayers  when  offered  through  her  are  more  easily 
and  quickly  answered  than  when  offered  through  him.  This 
certainly  is  placing  INIary  above  Christ,  in  that  which  is  the 
gem  of  the  royal  diadem,  mercy  and  compassion.  In  the 
second  extract  this  is  carried  out  to  its  natural  sequence. 
Those  that  approach  heaven  by  Christ  fail.  Those  that  ap- 
proach by  Mary  succeed.  And  this  at  least  is  placing 
her  above  him,  in  the  matter  of  our  salvation.  The  ladder  or 
way  red  with  his  blood  has  failed  ;  while  that  which  is  white 
with  her  virginity  is  found  to  succeed.  Christ  is  described  as 
giving  no  help.  Mary  is  pictured  as  putting  forth  her  hand 
and  saving ! 

Such  language  frightens  one.  To  say  that  it  was  supersti- 
tion, or  idolatry,  or  blasphemy,  or  heresy,  is  only  to  give  it 
a  hard  and  bad  name.  And  I  have  never  known  good  effect- 
ed by  hard  or  bad  names.  But  language  such  as  this  makes 
the  heart  beat.     It  frightens  one. 

Nor  must  it  be  supposed  that  this  language  is  antiquated  or 
foreign.  I  had  myself  heard  it  from  the  lips  of  living  divines 
from  the  Church  of  Rome  during  my  residence  in  that  city. 
It  was  there  stated  to  me,  that  "  Christ  himself  was  not  so  will- 
ing to  hear  our  prayers,  and  did  not  hear  them  so  quickly 
when  offered  simply  to  himself,  as  when  they  were  offered 
through  the  Blessed  Virgin." 

A  Roman  Catholic  periodical  in  England — "  The  Rambler," 
in  reviewing  this  statement,  has  the  following  starthng 
passage : — 

"  In  one  sense,  the  blessed  Virgin  Mary  is  more  sure  to 
hear  our  prayers  than  oiir  Blessed  Lord.     It  is  the  pri\dlege 


264  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

of  Marv  to  share  the  loving-kindness  of  her  Son  toward  sin- 
ners,  and  not  to  execute  his  wrath  upon  them.  And  there- 
fore she  is  all  mercy ^  while  he  is  both  mercy  and  justice.  Her 
mercy,  indeed,  is  but  the  mercy  of  a  creature,  while  His  is 
that  of  the  omnipotent  God.  Her  love  is  that  of  an  Interces- 
sor, His  the  love  of  a  Redeemer.  But  nevertheless,  the  only 
office  she  is  commissioned  to  fulfill  toward  us  is  one  of  pity,  and 
thus  in  one  sense  a  sinner^s  prayers  are  more  sure  to  be  heard 
by  her  than  by  her  Son^ 

And  thus  He,  who  left  the  heavens  in  ]o\nng-compassion  for 
us — who  walked  our  fallen  world  in  melting  pity  for  us — who 
bled,  and  died,  and  suffered  in  an  unquenchable  love  for  us — 
who  even  now  intercedes  in  the  heavens  in  sympathy  for  us — 
is  described  as  not  compassionating  us,  not  pitying  us,  not 
loving  us,  not  sympathizing  with  us,  so  much  as  Mary  !  ,Tbe 
Creator  must  thus  vail  and  retire  before  the  creature  !  How 
strangely  significant  were  the  words  addressed  by  an  apostle 
to  the  Church  of  Rome,  "  They  worshiped  and  served  the 
creature  more  than  the  Creator,  who  is  blessed  forever. 
Amen." — Rom.  i.  25. 

As  this  charge  is  the  most  awful  that  can  be  adduced  against 
a  professing  Church,  it  is  no  more  than  common  justice,  that 
their  reply  should  be  heard.  That  reply  is  difterent,  according 
to  the  different  class  of  religionists  of  Rome,  to  whom  the 
argument  is  addressed. 

Those  members  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  who  are  the  de- 
votional, pious,  religious,  and  generally  those  of  Italy  and 
Spain,  avow  all  this  language  toward  Mary,  and  defend  it  as 
admissible.  They  have  no  desire  either  to  change  or  to  soften 
it.  They  are  so  unacquainted  with  the  Scriptures — so  utterly 
ignorant  of  scriptural  Christianity,  that  they  do  not  see  any 
thing  wrong  or  objectionable  in  all  this  elevation  of  Mary ;  on 
the  other  hand,  they  regard  it  as  right  and  fitting.  It  falls  in 
with  all  their  religious  systems,  they  are  endeavoring  to  elevate 
the  worship  of  Mary  more  and  more  every  day,  and  they  an- 
ticipate, so  to  speak,  her  perfect,  and  supreme  elevation.  A 
Roman  lady,  one  day  said  in  my  presence,  "  that  the  hope  of 


THE    VIRGIN    MARY.  265 

spreading  true  morality  in  Italy  '\\as  most  promising,  because 
the  religion  of  the  most  holy  Mary  was  so  much  extending." 
And  one  of  the  priests  of  that  city  stated  to  myself,  that  "  the 
religion  of  Christ  was  every  day  becoming  more  and  more  the 
"  religion  of  Mary,"  and  he  spoke  this  as  approving  of  the 
change — the  transition  is  gradual  but  certain.  In  order, 
therefore,  to  raise  her  from  the  inferior  or  vailed  position 
which  she  has  hitherto  held  in  the  ideal  of  Christianity,  they 
have  no  hesitation  in  having  recourse  to  every  extravagance  of 
language  and  of  worship,  so  as  to  elevate  her  on  high,  and  so 
to  speak,  to  unveil  her  before  the  eyes  of  her  votaries.  When, 
therefore,  this  devout,  pious,  and  religious  class  of  Romanists, 
hears  these  passages  of  their  devotional  books  read  as  objection- 
able, they  at  once  adopt  them  and  justify  them ;  they  are  as 
much  surpi'ised  at  our  rejecting  them  as  we  are  at  their 
receiving  them. 

There  is  another  class,  however,  in  the  Church  of  Rome, 
who  look  on  all  this  as  the  extravagance  of  the  devout  and 
superstitious.  They  always  profess  to  dislike  such  language, 
as  calculated  to  impair  the  character  of  the  Church  of  Rome 
in  the  eyes  of  Protestants,  and  that  for  that  cause  they  profess 
to  regret  and  deplore  it.  They  think  it  may  do  very  well  for 
the  ignorant  masses,  and  therefore  they  are  unwilling  to  speak 
against  it;  and  they  argue,  with  some  show  of  justice  and 
reason,  when  they  say  that  it  is  not  fair  to  judge  the  Church 
of  Rome  by  these  books. 

The  answer  which  I  have  given  to  this  has  generally  silenced 
these  persons.  I  have  reminded  them  that  there  is  one  book 
— a  book  unspeakably  valued  and  cherished  among  us  as  the 
Book  of  books — THE  Holy  Scriptures,  which,  though  divinely 
inspired,  and  therefore  containing  no  error  whatever,  the 
Church  of  Rome  has  prohibited,  on  the  avowed  ground  that 
its  language  is  liable  to  be  mistaken  by  the  simple  and  ignorant. 
The  Church  of  Rome,  in  the  decree  of  the  congregation  of  the 
Index,  has  prohibited  the  perusal  of  this  book  by  the  laity, 
unless  where  the  bishop  gives  license,  as  thinking  it  may  be 
read  without  danger — has  prohibited  its  being  sold  by  any 

12 


266  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

bookseller,  unless  with  permission  from  the  bishop — and  has 
prohibited  its  being  read  even  by  the  regular  clergy,  i.  e.,  by 
the  monastic  orders,  unless  under  a  like  permission.*  I  have 
said,  that  it  was  a  fact — a  broad  and  great  fact — that  the 
Church  of  Rome  professed  to  prohibit  such  books  as  were 
likely  to  injure  the  faith  of  her  people,  and  so  to  prohibit  the 
Holy  Scriptures  on  the  ground  that  they  were  liable  to  be 
mistaken  by  the  simple  and  ignorant.  Now,-!  ask — why  she 
has  not  prohibited  these  devotional  books  if  she  thinks  them 
liable  to  be  mistaken  by  the  simple  and  ignorant  ?  And  why 
do  not  you,  I  have  said  to  the  piiests — why  do  not  you,  who  are 
so  active  in  suppressing  the  reading  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  on 
the  ground  of  their  liability  to  being  mistaken — why  do  not  you 
use  the  same  activity  in  suppressing  these  devotional  books,  if 
indeed  you  disapprove  of  them,  or  think  them  liable  to  be 
mistaken  ?  And  does  not  your  zeal  against  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures seem  to  imply  that  the  people  may  learn  more  evil  from 
them  than  from  these  books,  which  you  say  you  disapprove 
of?  And  as  to  their  being  authorized  or  not  by  the  Church, 
it  should  be  remembered  that  they  are  often  published  with 
authority  in  Rome  herself,  and  that  too  in  a  place  where  the 
press  is  so  scrupulously  watched,  that  no  man  could  publish 
or  sell  the  Holy  Scriptures.  Why  do  they  not  at  Rome, 
or  elsewhere,  prohibit  the  publication  of  these  books,  as  well 
as  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  ?  Tlie  fact  that  they  prohibit  the 
publication  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  the  fact  that  they 
authorize  the  publication  of  these  books,  must  sta^d  as  proof 
that  they  approve  of  these  more  than  of  the  Holy  Scriptures. 

And  now  the  question  comes — What  saith  the  Scripture  ? 

The  contrast  is  striking  indeed.  The  devotional  books  of 
the  Church  of  Rome  are  full,  even  to  overflowing  of  the  re- 
ligion of  Mary.  The  Holy  Scriptures  contain  nothing  of  it, 
but  only  the  religion  of  Christ. 

The  Holy  Scriptures  "  given  by  inspiration  of  God,"  and 
"  able  to  make  us  wise  unto  salvation  through  faith,"  say 

*  These  several  provisions  are  contained  in  the  decree  of  the  Ijidex 
concerning  the  Holy  Scriptures. 


THE    VIRGIN    MARY.  267 

nothing  whatever  respecting  her  birth,  as  little  as  possible  con- 
cerning her  life,  and  not  one  word  about  her  death.  This  si- 
lence is  sigTiificant. 

But  the  Church  of  Rome,  instead  of  imitating  the  Divine 
silence,  has  supplied  material  in  abundance  ;  she  professes  to  tell 
us  all  about  the  marriage  of  her  parents — her  own  miraculous 
birth — the  incidents  of  her  childhood — ^her  intercourse  with 
Joseph — her  betrothal  and  marriage — her  conversations  with 
the  kings  of  the  east — her  after  life — her  death,  burial,  and 
assumption  into  heaven — her  coronation  as  queen  of  heaven,  of 
angels  and  of  saints !  An  inventive  genius  has  not  been  wanting. 

There  is  in  all  that  concerns  Mary,  a  strange  contrast  in- 
deed between  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  the  writings  of  the 
Church  of  Rome. 

It  is  not  the  least  remarkable  fact  of  the  gospel  history,  that 
it  does  not  give  a  single  instance  of  our  Lord's  having  addressed 
Mary  as  his  mother.  The  gospels  omit  all  mention  of  his 
childhood,  except  that  he  was  subject  to  his  parents,  and  of 
course  that  they  directed  him  as  his  parents,  and  that  he 
obeyed  them  as  their  child.  But  in  all  his  ministerial  life — 
from  the  moment  of  his  manifesting  his  Messiahship — from 
the  baptism  in  the  Jordan,  he  never  once  addresses  Mary  as 
his  mother.     He  seems  never  to  have  recognized  her  as  such. 

There  are  only  three  instances  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  where 
our  Lord  is  described  as  speaking  to  Mary. 

I.  The  first  occurred  in  his  childhood.  He  left  his  parents, 
and  they  knew  not  where  he  was.  They  found  him  among 
,  the  doctors  in  the  temple.  The  Gospel  narrates,  Luke  ii.  48— | 
-51,  that  "  when  they  saw  him,  they  were  amazed,  and  his 
mother  said  unto  him.  Son,  why  hast  thou  thus  dealt  with  us  ? 
behold  thy  father  and  I  have  sought  thee  sorrowing.  And  he 
said  unto  them.  How  is  it  that  ye  sought  me  ?  wist  ye  not 
that  I  must  be  about  my  Father's  business  ?  And  they  un- 
derstood not  the  saying  which  he  spake  unto  them.  And  he 
went  down  with  them,  and  became  subject  unto  them  :  but 
his  mother  kept  all  these  sayings  in  her  heart."  This  incident 
occurred  in  his  childhood,  and  these  his  first  words  detailed  as 


268  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

addressed  to  Mary,  certainly  do  not  justify  any  very  extrava- 
gant devotional  language  toward  her  on  our  part. 

11.  The  next  occasion  was  after  he  had  commenced  his 
public  teaching.  The  Gospel  narrates,  John  ii.  3,  4,  "  When 
they  wanted  wine,  the  mother  of  Jesus  saith  unto  him,  they 
have  no  wine.  Jesus  saith  unto  her.  Woman,  what  have  I  to 
do  with  thee  ?  mine  hour  is  not  yet  come."  He  liere  ad- 
dresses her  not  as  his  "  mother,"  but  simply  as  "  woman,"  a 
terra  not  of  contempt  or  of  slight,  but  the  term  of  respect  or 
courtesy  ordinarily  applied  to  females.  He  thus  addresses  her 
with  no  peculiar  deference,  but  only  with  the  same  language 
in  which  he  would  have  addressed  any  other  woman  present. 
And  when  he  adds  "  What  have  I  to  do  with  thee  ?"  or  as  the 
Roman  Catholics  translate  it,  "  What  is  it  to  me,  and  to  thee  ?" 
the  words  seem  to  convey  some  gentle  reproof  for  her  inter- 
ference, implying  that  he  could  not  recognize  any  thing  in 
common  between  them — any  relation  which  could  justify  her 
interfering  ;  and  though  she  might  think  the  time  was  come 
for  his  intended  miracle,  he  preferred  waiting  longer,  "J/y 
time,"  he  said,  "  is  not  yet  come." 

in.  The  last  instance  of  his  addressing  Mary  was  on  the 
cross.  He  could  then  see  her  natural  sorrows — the  sorrows  of 
a  mother  beside  a  dying  son.  One  might  suppose  it  the  occa- 
sion of  drawing  from  him  language  of  touching  endearment 
and  tenderness — but  no.  He  knew  what  was  in  man,  and 
knew  that  any  endearing  or  tender  words  toward  her  might 
and  would  be  perverted  into  words  to  justify  the  worship  of  a 
woman.  He  therefore  would  not  even  call  her  his  mother ; 
he  addressed  her  only  as  he  would  have  addressed  any  other 
female,  "  Woman."  And  he  commits  her,  now  widowed, 
childless,  destitute,  to  the  care  of  his  loved  disciple  John ;  and 
desires  her  to  regard  John  in  future  as  her  son,  and  desires 
John  to  protect  her  as  his  mother  in  future.  "  Woman,"  said 
he,  "  behold  thy  son  !"  and  addressing  John — "  Behold  thy 
mother  !"  And  in  obedience  to  this  dying  wish,  the  beloved 
disciple  "  took  her  unto  his  own  home."  John  was  to  be  a 
Bon  to  Mary,  and  Mary  was  to  be  a  mother  to  John. 


THE    VIRGIN    MARY.  269 

In  these,  whicTi  are  the  ouly  instances  in  which  our  Lord  is 
described  as  having  spoken  to  Mary,  there  certainly  is  nothing 
to  warrant  the  high,  extreme,  extravagant  language  of  devo- 
tion which  characterizes  the  devotional  books  of  the  Church 
of  Rome.  On  the  other  hand,  the  fact — the  simple  ftict — that 
in  all  the  gospel  history  these  are  the  only  instances  recorded ; 
the  simple  fact  that  there  is  a  settled,  formal,  deliberate  silence 
on  the  subject,  is  calculated  to  convey  the  feeling  that  the 
Holy  Ghost  designed  to  cut  away  all  excuse  or  occasion  or 
ground  for  such  language  of  devotion  and  worship,  as  He,  who 
knew  the  future  as  well  as  the  present,  foresaw  Avould  be  in- 
troduced into  the  Church. 

But  the  Holy  Scriptures  go  further  than  this.  Our  Lord 
is  described  as  speaking  twice  about  his  mother ;  and  on  both 
occasions  his  words  bear  a  wonderful  significance. 

L  The  first  is  in  Matt.  xii.  46— "While  he  yet  talked  to 
the  people,  behold  his  mother  and  his  brethren  stood  without, 
desiring  to  speak  with  him.  Then  one  said  unto  him.  Behold, 
thy  mother  and  thy  brethren  stand  without,  desiring  to  speak 
with  thee.  But  he  answered  and  said  unto  him  that  told  him, 
Who  is  my  mother  ?  and  who  are  my  brethren  ?  And  he 
stretched  forth  his  hand  toward  his  disciples,  and  said.  Behold 
my  mother  and  my  brethren !  For  whosoever  shall  do  the 
will  of  my  Father  which  is  in  Heaven,  the  same  is  my  brother, 
and  sister,  and  mother."  He  thus  heard  of  Mary  wishing  to 
speak  with  him ;  He  does  not  comply ;  He  remains  as  he 
was ;  and  though  He  had  then  the  opportunity  of  magnifjnng 
her  before  the  eyes  of  all.  He  carefully  avoids  it,  and  seems 
not  so  much  as  to  recognize  her  as  His  mother.  He  asks — 
"  Who  is  my  mother  P  and  he  answers  the  question  Himself 
— "  Whosoever  will  do  the  will  of  ray  Father  which  is  in 
Heaven,  the  same  is  my  brother,  and  sister,  and  mother." 
Whatever  the  tie  or  the  love  He  owed  a  mother,  should  now 
be  the  tie  and  love  which  He  would  feel  for  all  who  do  the 
will  of  God  ;  and  other  relationship  He  recognized  not.  He 
was  now  the  manifested  Messiah,  and  He  knew  no  ties  on 


270  EVENINGS    WITH   THE    ROMANISTS. 

earth  but  tliat  common  mauliood  which  gave  Him  sympathy 
with  all  the  people  of  God. 

n.  The  second  instance  in  which  He  is  narrated  as  speak- 
ing of  His  mother  is  still  more  remarkable.  Luke  xi.  27 — • 
"  It  came  to  pass,  as  he  spake  these  things,  a  certain  woman 
of  the  company  lifted  up  her  voice,  and  said  unto  him,  Blessed 
is  the  womb  that  bare  thee,  and  the  paps  which  thou  hast 
sucked.  But  he  said,  Yea,  rather,  blessed  are  they  that  hear 
the  word  of  God,  and  keep  it."  Here  is  a  woman,  in  the  feel- 
ing so  natural  in  a  woman,  blessing  her  Avho  was  the  mother 
of  Jesus.  She  blesses  the  womb  that  bore  Him  and  the 
breasts  which  suckled  Him.  It  is  to  this  day  the  universal 
argument  among  the  members  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  And 
here  we  learn  how  our  Lord  regarded  it.  His  answer  is  re- 
markable ;  "  Yea,"  was  his  confirmation  of  the  words  of  the 
woman.  She  was  indeed  blessed  who  had  borne  and  suckled 
Him ;  but  there  was  a  greater  blessedness  still  than  this — and 
however  great  was  the  blessedness  of  Mary  as  His  mother, 
there  was  a  blessedness  still  greater  which  every  Christian 
woman  may  possess ;  for,  "  rather  blessed,"  that  is,  "  more 
blessed  are  they  that  hear  the  word  of  God,  and  keep  it."  If, 
then,  any  woman  among  us  would  have  a  blessedness,  still 
greater  than  that  which  Mary  possessed,  as  his  mother,  she 
has  only  to  hear  the  word  of  God  and  keep  it. 

Truly  there  is  a  great  contrast  between  the  words  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures  and  the  teaching  of  the  Church  of  Rome. 

One  only  consideration  remains ;  it  is  that  connected  with 
what  is  called — most  untruly  called — the  Angelical  Salutation. 

A  young  man,  a  fine,  open,  generous  fellow,  who  was  very 
earnest  and  zealous  for  the  religion  of  Rome,  stopped  me  one 
day  to  ask  me  whether  "  the  Angelical  Salutation"  was  not  in 
the  Holy  Scriptures  ;  that  a  Protestant  had  denied  it  to  him  ; 
and  he  wished  to  hear  it  from  myself. 

I  asked  him  to  repeat  it  for  me. 

He  did  so. — "  Hail,  Mary,  full  of  grace,  the  Lord  is  with 
thee. 


THE    VIRGIN    MARY.  271 

"  Blessed  art  tliou  among  women,  aud  blessed  is  the  fruit 
of  thy  womb — Jesus. 

"  Holy  Mary,  pray  for  us  now  and  at  the  hour  of  death. 
Amen." 

I  then  said,  that  it  consisted  of  three  parts.  There  was, 
first,  the  salutation  of  the  angel :  there  was,  next,  the  words 
of  Elizabeth,  the  mother  of  the  Baptist :  and,  lastly,  there 
was  a  prayer  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  which  is  not  in  the 
Holy  Scriptures  at  all. 

He  did  not  seem  quite  to  understand  me ;  so  I  produced 
my  little  Roman  Catholic  translation  of  the  New  Testament, 
and  showed  him  the  place  in  Luke,  i.  28 — "  Hail,  full  of  grace, 
the  Lord  is  with  thee,  blessed  art  thou  among  women." 
There  is  nothing  more,  I  remarked,  in  the  angel's  salutation. 

He  read  it  again  and  again ;  he  was  inexpressibly  puzzled  ; 
but,  he  asked  me,  where  was  the  rest  of  it  ?  Was  not  the 
rest  of  it  a  part  of  the  Angelical  Salutation  ? 

I  replied,  of  course,  that  it  was  not,  and  showed  him  the 
second  part  of  it  in  Luke,  i.  42.  It  was  not  the  angel — ^it 
was  Elizabeth  who  said,  "  Blessed  art  thou  among  women,  and 
blessed  is  the  fruit  of  thy  won:ib."  I  desired  him  to  read  it 
for  himself. 

He  read  it,  and  paused,  and  read  it  again  and  again,  and 
asked  where  was  the  remainder  of  it  ?  He  seemed  perplexed, 
and,  as  I  thought,  angered  and  chagrined. 

I  said,  that  the  third  part  Avas,  "  Holy  Mary,  pray  for  us 
now  and  at  the  hour  of  death,"  and  this  was  not  spoken  by 
the  angel,  nor  by  Elizabeth,  and  was  not  in  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures at  all.  It  was  the  mere  invention  of  the  priests  of  Rome. 
And,  I  added,  it  was  wickedly  added  to  the  angel's  salutation ; 
— it  had  been  wickedly  taught  to  you  under  the  name  of  the 
angel's  salutation ; — it  has  been  wickedly  done  to  deceive  you 
into  the  belief  that  the  angel  prayed  to  Mary,  that  you  might 
be  induced  to  think  it  could  not  be  wrong  for  you  to  do  what 
the  angel  did,  and  thus  to  pray  to  Mary  to  pray  for  you. 
Here  is  the  Roman  Catholic  translation  ;  you  can  judge  for 
yourself. 


272  EVENINGS    AVITH   THE    ROMANISTS. 

He  looked  on  the  ground  for  a  few  moments — clasped  his 
hands  almost  convulsively — covered  his  face  with  his  hands — 
then  letting  them  fall,  he  said,  with  a  voice  of  deep  pathos — 
O,  sir,  when  our  clergy  deceive  us,  poor,  ignorant  people,  thus, 
what  is  to  become  of  us,  and  what  are  we  to  believe  ?  He 
spoke  with  intense  earnestness. 

I  said — God  has  given  to  you  His  word,  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures :  He  has  told  you  "  they  are  able  to  make  thee  wise 
unto  salvation  through  faith."  He  has  commanded  you  to 
"  search  the  Scriptures  ;"  read  and  believe  them,  and  then  no 
man  shall  be  able  to  deceive  you. 

I  believe  you  are  right,  was  his  only  reply,  as  he  left  me 
very  thoughtfully. 

It  may  here  be  noticed  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  angel's 
salutation  to  justify  either  prayer  or  worship  to  the  Virgin  Mary. 

The  word,  "Hail"  does  not  justify  it,  for  it  was  only  the 
ordinary  salute  of  the  time,  and  was  addressed  by  our  Lord 
himself  to  his  disciples  :  he  said,  "All  hail,"  when  certainly  he 
did  not  pray  to  them  nor  worship  them. — Matt,  xxviii.  9. 

The  words — "The  Lord  be  with  thee,"  do  not  justify  it,  for 
the  very  same  words  are  addressed  also  by  the  angel  to  Gideon, 
"  The  Lord  is  with  thee,  thou  mighty  man  of  valor ;"  Judges 
vi.  12,  and  certainly  they  do  not  entitle  Gideon  to  any  worship. 

The  words — "  Thou  art  highly  favored,"  or,  as  the  Roman- 
ists translate  it,  "full  of  grace,"  will  not  justify  it,  for  the  same 
words,  indeed  stronger,  are  addressed  to  the  ])rophet  Daniel — 
"0  man,  greatly  beloved,"  Dan.  x.  19,  and  such  words  do  not 
imply  prayer  or  worship  to  him. 

The  words — "Blessed  art  thou  among  women,"  as  spoken 
to  Mary,  are  no  more  than  the  words  spoken  of  Jael — "  Blessed 
shall  Jael  the  wife  of  Heber  the  Kenite  be ;  blessed  shall  she 
be  above  women  in  the  tent ;"  Judges  v.  24.  Such  words  do 
not  justify  prayer  or  worship,  either  to  Jael  on  one  hand,  or 
to  the  Virgin  Mary  on  the  other. 

Let  us  think  of  Mary  with  tender  affection,  as  of  the  mother 
of  Jesus ;  but  let  us  neither  pray  to  her  nor  worship  her ;  for 
prayer  and  worship  belong  exclusively  to  the  Godhead. 


THE  CHRISTIAN  PRIESTHOOD. 

Tht  Canons  of  Trent  on  the  Priesthood  and  on  the  Mass— Occasion  of  this  Conver- 
sa  Ion— The  Sacrifice  among  Protestants— The  figurative  Application  of  the  Term 
—The  Priesthood  of  Jesus  Christ— The  Christian  Ministry  never  called  a  Priest- 
hood in  Scripture— The  only  Priesthood  on  Earth  is  that  of  all  Believers— The 
Sufficiency  of  Jesus  Christ— The  true  Meaning  of  the  Terms  Priest  and  Pres- 
byter. 

There  are  few  subjects  at  issue  between  the  Churcb  of 
Rome  and  ourselves,  upon  wliicli  I  have  been  more  frequently- 
engaged  in  discussion,  than  on  the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass.  Its 
own  innate  importance,  arising  out  of  the  principles  it  in- 
volves— the  great  value  placed  upon  it  by  its  votaries — its 
being  regarded  as  their  "  morning  and  evening  sacrifice,"  the 
greatest  and  highest  of  all  their  rites,  and  the  most  efficacious, 
and  precious,  and  important  of  all  the  mysteries  of  their  faith, 
always  invests  its  discussion  with  a  prominence  and  an  in- 
terest peculiarly  its  own.  The  most  essential  and  character- 
istic elements  of  Romanism  are  all  interwreathed  and  involved 
in  it.  And  all  the  grandest  truths  of  a  Protestant  Christianity- 
are  drawn  out  and  engaged  against  it.  It  has  thus  naturally 
become  in  my  intercourse  with  Romanists,  a  constant  subject 
of  controversial  as  well  as  of  amicable  conversation. 

It  is  unhappily  true,  that  upon  this,  as  upon  many  other 
points  at  issue  between  us,  there  are  mistakes  on  both  sides, 
as  to  the  real  nature  and  character  of  the  sacrifice  of  the 
Mass.  Hence  I  have  always  felt  it  desirable  when  entering 
on  this  discussion,  to  obviate  all  mistakes  and  misapprehen- 
sions by  letting  the  Church  of  Rome  speak  for  herself  in  her 
four  canons  upon  the  subject. 

The  Canons  of  the  Council  of  Trent  are  as  follows : 

12* 


2*74  EVENINGS    Wmi    THE    KOMANISTS. 

"  If  any  man  shall  say,  that  a  true  and  proper  sacrifice  is 
not  offered  to  God  in  the  Mass,  or  thr.t  that  which  is  oflered, 
is  only  Christ  offered  to  us  to  be  eaten  by  us — let  him  be 
anathema." — Canon  I. 

"  If  any  man  shall  say  that  Christ  did  not  constitute  the 
apostles  sacrificers  (sacerdotes)  by  the  words  '  Do  this  in  re- 
membrance of  Me' — or  that  He  did  not  ordain  them,  that 
they  and  other  sacrificeis  (sacerdotes)  might  ofier  His  body 
and  blood — let  him  be  anathema." — Canon  11. 

"  K  any  man  shall  say  that  the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass  is  only 
a  sacrifice  of  praise  and  thanksgiving,  or  that  it  is  a  mere 
commemoration  of  the  sacrifice  done  on  the  cross,  and  that  it 
is  not  a  propitiatory  sacrifice,  or  that  it  is  profitable  only  to 
the  person  who  receives  it,  and  that  it  ought  not  to  be  offered 
for  the  hving  and  the  dead,  for  sins,  punishments,  satisfactions, 
and  other  necessities — let  Him  be  anathema." — Canon  HI. 

"  If  any  man  shall  say  that  by  the  sacrifice  of  the  ISIass 
there  is  blasphemy  done  to  the  most  holy  sacrifice  of  Christ 
offered  on  the  cross,  or  that  there  is  any  dishonor  done  to 
Him  in  the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass — let  him  be  anathema." — 
Canon  IV. 

In  the  following  conversation,  the  subject  was  principally 
that  involved  in  the  second  of  these  Canons ;  namely,  the 
priesthood.  The  other  Canons  embody  the  subject-matter  of 
a  subsequent  conversation. 

While  in  conversation  with  a  few  Roman  Catholics  one  day 
— the  topic  at  the  time  being  so  non-theological  a  subject  as 
the  price  of  potatoes,  and  the  best  means  of  counteracting  the 
schemes  of  some  farmers  and  speculators  who  were  combining 
to  secure  a  high  price  for  their  stoch: — a  combination  often 
made  to  the  disadvantage  and  injury  of  the  poor — the  Roman 
Catholic  priest  of  the  parish  approached,  accompanied  by  a 
number  of  his  flock.  He  seemed  excited,  he  held  a  stout 
hunting-wliip  in  one  hand  and  a  small  book  in  the  other. 
The  manner  of  his  approach  prepared  me  immediately  for  an 
encounter  of  a  hostile  kind,  though  I  was  much  perplexed  as 
to  the  cause ;  and  I  would  gladly  have  retired,  only  that  I 


THE    CHRISTIAN    PRIESTHOOD.  275 

apprehended  my  doing  so  miglit  be  misconstrued.  Hence  I 
awaited  his  comiug. 

He  waived  his  riglit  hand  in  which  he  held  his  whip,  and 
thus  soon  cleared  an  open  space,  keeping  the  people  from 
pressing  on  him,  and  enabling  all  to  see  both  him  and  myself. 
It  seemed  at  the  moment  as  if  he  was  elate  and  confident — as 
if  he  felt  he  had  some  means  of  perfect  triumph  over  me,  and 
wished  that  all  should  be  witnesses  of  his  success.  In  his  left 
hand  he  held  open  a  volume  which  proved  to  be,  not  as  I 
thouglit  a  missal,  but  the  book  of  Common  Prayer,  and  he 
held  this  toward  me,  pushing  it  almost  into  my  very  face. 

Now,  he  exclaimed,  here  is  your  own  Book — your  own 
Protestant  Prayer  Book.  You  stated  to  some  of  my  flock — 
and  here  are  some  of  them  that  heard  you  say  it — that  the 
holy  sacrifice  of  the  Mass  was  not  a  sacrifice  at  all — that  there 
was  no  such  thino'  as  a  sacrifice  in  the  Catholic  Church — that 
there  is  no  such  ofiice  as  that  of  a  priest  in  the  Church  of  the 
Holy  Jesus,  blessed  be  his  holy  name — and  that  thus  there  is 
neither  priest  nor  sacrifice  in  the  holy  Catholic  Church.  Now 
to  confute  you,  here  is  your  own  Protestant  Prayer  Book, 
where  the  service  of  your  own  Mass — I  mean,  he  said,  on 
observing  a  smile  among  the  people,  your  ov/n  communion- 
service  as  you  call  it,  is  expressly  called  a  sacrifice.  The  very 
words  are  "  this  sacrifice  of  praise  and  thanksgiving ;"  I  will 
read  them,  he  added,  in  a  tone  of  triumph,  "  0  Lord  and 
heavenly  Father,  we  thy  humble  servants  entirely  desire  thy 
fatherly  goodness,  mercifully  to  accept  this  our  sacrifice  of 
praise  and  thanksgiving."  There,  he  exclaimed,  in  conscious 
triumph,  they  acknowledge  it  in  their  own  Protestant  Church, 
and  deny  it  in  the  Catholic  Church  ! 

Every  eye  was  now  turned  on  me  for  an  answer,  and  yet  I 
felt  that  this  was  not  the  place,  nor  was  my  opponent  in  the 
state  of  mind  and  tone  of  feelino-  suited  to  a  discussion  on 
religion.  So  I  told  him  we  were  just  then  talking  about  the 
high  price  of  potatoes,  and  speaking  of  the  best  way  of  coun- 
teracting the  combination  of  the  farmers  and  speculators. 
And,  I  added,  in  the  most  kindly  way,  that  if  he  would  help 


276  EVENINGS    WITH   THE    ROMANISTS. 

US  in  this  matter,  I  would  gladly  talk  v/itli  liim  ou  the  other 
matter  on  some  future  occasion. 

My  proposal  only  made  jnatters  worse.  He  replied  that 
he  would  have  nothing  to  do  with  me  about  potatoes  or  any 
thing  else,  until  I  answered  him  about  the  Mass ; — that  I  had 
said  the  Mass  was  not  a  sacrifice,  and  that  there  was  no  sacri- 
fice in  the  Church,  when  in  the  Protestant  Prayer  Book  itsell' 
the  communion  was  expressly  called  a  sacrifice. 

I  saw  he  would  have  his  way,  and  I  saw  likewise  that  the 
people,  who  take  an  intense  interest  and  pleasure  in  a  contro- 
versial rencounter,  quite  as  much  as  in  any  other  species  of 
fighting,  wished  me  to  re]ily. 

I  said  that  on  the  occasion  alluded  to  I  had  stated  that  there 
was  a  sacrifice  in  the  Church  of  Christ ;  that  there  was  owe, 
and  only  one,  true  propitiatory  sacrifice  that  could  take  away 
sin  or  make  atonement  for  sin — that  that  was  the  bleeding 
sacrifice  of  Jesus  Christ  on  the  cross  of  Calvary,  "  the  Lamb  of 
God  that  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world ;"  that  that  was 
the  one  sacrifice  required  by  all  the  Protestant  Churches ;  and 
that  we  could  recognize  no  other  as  a  true,  propitiatory,  or 
atoning  sacrifice.  We  feel  and  know — I  added,  with  all  the 
gentle  courtesy  I  could  show,  and  with  all  the  kind  and  earn- 
est feelings  I  entertained — and  one  of  your  education  and 
information  knows,  that  in  a  large  and  figurative  sense,  every 
act  of  prayer,  or  of  praise,  or  of  charity,  or  of  love  is  a  spiritual 
sacrifice.  The  Holy  Scriptures  describe  prayer  as  if  it  were 
"  incense,"  and  tlie  lifting  up  of  our  hands  in  prayer  and  devo- 
tion as  "  an  evening  sacrifice."  The  Holy  Scriptures  describe 
the  doing  good  to  others,  even  with  our  worldly  substance,  as 
"  a  sacrifice  with  which  God  is  well  pleased."  The  Holy 
Sci'iptures  describe  the  devotion  of  ourselves  to  Him  as  "  a 
living  sacrifice"  which  is  acceptable  to  God.  The  Holy  Scrip- 
tures describe  the  Christian  as  offering  ^'■spiritual  sacrifices 
acceptable  to  God,  through  Jesus  Christ."  All  these  earnest 
and  devotional  acts  of  the  Christian  life  are  "  spiritual  sacri- 
fices." And  therefore  we  call  our  communion  in  the  Lord's 
Supper  with  prayer  and  praise  and  thanksgiving  "  a  sacrifice 


THE    CHRISTIAN    PRIESTHOOD.  277 

of  praise  and  thanksgiving."  This  is  simply  the  meaning  of 
the  wcvds  in  the  Prayer  Book ;  and  therefore,  what  I  said  a 
few  evinings  since,  was,  that  the  sacrifice  of  Jesus  Christ  was 
the  orly  true,  atoning  sacrifice  in  the  Church :  and  that  ex- 
cepting this,  there  was  not  a  true  or  propitiatory  sacrifice  in 
any  Church.  And  that,  therefore,  the  Mass  of  the  Chur(-h  of 
Rome  was  not  a  true  and  propitiatory  sacrifice  for  sin  as  de- 
scribed in  her  creed — "  I  profess  that  in  the  Mass  there  is 
offered  to  God  a  true,  proper,  propitiatory  sacrifice  for  the 
living  and  the  dead."  I  appealed  to  our  hearers  as  to  whether 
this  was  not  the  purport  of  all  I  had  stated ;  and  then  I  sug- 
gested that  we  should  leave  the  subject  for  the  present,  and 
rather  try  something  on  which  we  were  more  likely  to  agree, 
instead  of  one  on  which  we  were  sure  to  differ ;  suggesting 
that  as  I  had  answered  his  question,  I  hoped  he  would  now 
consult  with  us  about  the  combination  to  raise  the  price  of 
potatoes  on  the  poor. 

My  appeal  was  useless.  He  looked  at  me  with  an  appear- 
ance of  conscious  triumph,  and  added,  in  a  tone  which  there 
was  no  mistaking — that  not  contented  with  saying  to  hisffock 
that  the  holy  Mass  was  not  a  sacrifice,  I  had  also  blasphemed 
the  Catholic  clergy,  and  said  that  he  was  no  priest — that  he, 
ay,  that  he  was  not  a  priest — for  that  there  was  no  priest  at 
all  in  the  Church  except  Jesus  Christ.  He  looked  at  me  for  a 
reply. 

I  answered  very  slowly,  but  very  impressively,  that  whoever 
had  so  reported  rce  had  in  one  particular,  reported  me  truly. 
The  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  the  High  Priest  of  the  Church.  Any 
and  every  Christian,  may,  in  a  figurative  way,  or  in  the  spirit- 
ual sense,  be  called  a  priest,  and  is  so  called  in  Scripture  ;  but 
as  for  a  real,  true  priest,  in  the  sense  of  a  man  to  offer  a  true 
and  atoning  sacrifice  for  sin,  in  this  sense,  in  which  it  is  used 
among  you — neither  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  nor  in  the  Church 
of  England,  nor  in  the  Church  of  Scotland,  nor  in  any  Roman 
or  Greek  or  Protestant  Church  is  there  a  priest  but  the  Lord 
J  3SUS  Christ  himself. 

If  I  had  spoken  a  thunderbolt  or  breathed  a  lightning  flash, 


278  EVENINGS   WITH   TRE    ROMANISTS. 

he  could  not  lave  been  more  excited.  He  exclaimed,  tliat  it 
was  horrible  blasphemy,  and  enough  to  drive  a  whole  nation 
of  Catholics,  like  Ireland,  into  rebellion  and  revolution  !  And 
without  another  word,  he  rushed  from  the  midst  of  us,  and 
walked  away  as  rapidly  as  possible. 

His  sudden  retreat  had  its  natural  effect  on  so  peculiar  and 
so  excitable  a  people  as  our  hearers.  They  were  both  disap- 
pointed and  angered.  I  immediately  expressed  my  regret,  not 
indeed  at  his  departure,  but  at  his  interruption  of  our  previous 
consultation ; — told  them  that  I  would  say  no  more  at  that 
moment  on  the  subject  of  the  priesthood,  but  tliat  I  would 
speak  of  it  again  at  our  cottage  lecture  in  the  evening ; — and 
so  we  resumed  our  consultation  as  to  the  best  means  of  keep- 
ing down  the  price  of  potatoes. 

In  the  evening  there  was  a  large  attendance  of  Roman  Cath- 
olics mingled  with  the  Protestants  at  the  cottage  where  I  was 
to  deliver  my  lecture.  I  had  expected  this  from  the  little  af- 
fair of  the  morning. 

After  our  usual  prayer  aud  reading  of  a  chapter  from  the 
Holy  Scriptures,  which  on  this  occasion  was  the  eighth  of 
Hebrews,  I  proceeded,  in  my  usual  way,  to  explain  the  chap- 
ter generally  in  plain  and  simple  language,  and  to  make  it  as 
subsidiary  as  possible  to  the  promotion  of  holiness  of  thought 
and  feeling  and  life.  I  then  dwelt  more  particularly  on  the 
priesthood  of  the  Lord,  as  set  forth  in  the  opening  verses.  I 
laid  it  down,  that  in  heaven  and  earth  there  was  but  one  true, 
propitiatory,  atoning  saciifice — Jesus  Christ  on  the  cross  ;  and 
but  one  true  and  sacriUcing  priest  to  ofier  it — Jesus  Christ  in 
the  heavens.  I  also  laid  it  down  broadly,  that  in  "  the  Church 
militant  here  on  earth"  there  was  no  priesthood  whatever,  ex- 
cept that  spiritual  priesthood  Avhich  belongs  to  every  Christian 
and  believing  man,  woman  and  child  ; — that  there  was  no  es- 
pecial priesthood  in  any  special  or  select  body  of  men  apart 
from  the  whole  number  of  "  the  f:iithful  and  elect  people  of 
God ;" — that  there  was  no  priestly  caste,  no  sacerdotal  caste, 
possessed  of  any  peculiar  or  exclusive  priesthood ;  that  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  was  the  only  tru«s  sacrificing  priest,  as  He 


THE    CHRISTIAN    PRIESTHOOD.  2*19 

was  also  the  only  true,  atoning  sacrifice  for  sin ;  and  that  all 
His  believing-  people  were,  in  the  words  of  St.  Peter,  "  a  holy 
priesthood,"  and,  in  the  language  of  St.  Paul,  "  a  living  sacri- 
fice." I  went  on  to  illustrate  my  position  that  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  was  the  great  High  Priest  of  the  Church,  and  the  only 
one  so  designated  in  the  Holy  Scriptures.  I  illustrated  this 
by  verse  one  of  the  chapter  before  us,  the  eighth  ;  wherein  I 
read — "  Wherefore  in  all  things  it  behooveth  him  to  be  made 
like  unto  his  brethren,  that  he  might  be  a  merciful  and  faith- 
ful high  priest  in  things  pertaining  to  God,  to  make  reconcili- 
ation for  the  sins  of  the  people." — Heb.  ii.  17.  "Wherefore, 
holy  brethren,  partakers  of  the  heavenly  calling,  .consider  the 
Apostle  and  High  Priest  of  our  profession,  Christ  Jesus." 
Heb.  iii.  1.  And  again — "Seeing  then  that  we  have  a  great 
High  Priest,  that  is  passed  into  the  heavens,  Jesus  the  Son  of 
God,  let  us  hold  fast  our  profession.  For  we  have  not  an  High 
Priest  which  can  not  be  touched  with  the  feelinar  of  our  infirm- 
ities ;  but  was  in  all  points  tempted  like  as  we  are,  yet  with- 
out sin." — Heb.  iv.  14.  And  again:  "Now  of  the  things 
which  we  have  spoken  this  is  the  sum  :  We  have  such  an 
High  Priest,  who  is  set  on  the  right  hand  of  the  throne  of  the 
Majesty  in  the  heavens." — Heb.  viii.  1.  I  said  that  these  pass- 
ages might  be  easily  multiplied  to  show  Jesus  Christ  to  be  the 
one  priest  of  His  people.  And  then,  as  was  my  habit,  I  ask- 
ed whether  there  was  any  one  who  desired  to  ask  any  ques- 
tion for  further  information. 

One  of  our  hearers  in  the  little  aftair  of  the  morning,  a 
zealous  member  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  here  remarked,  that 
it  had  been  made  veiy  plain,  and  no  one  could  contradict  it, 
by  the  Scriptures  which  had  been  read,  that  the  Blessed  Lord 
Jesus  was  the  High  Priest  of  the  Church — that  that  was  true 
Catholic  doctrine,  and  the  doctrine  of  the  Catholic  Church — 
that  therefore  neither  he  nor  any  Catholic  could  speak  against 
it ;  but,  he  added  shrewdly,  that  the  fact  of  the  Lord  being 
the  High  Priest,  did  not  hinder,  but  that  there  might  be  other 
priests.  For  example,  he  said,  his  holiness,  the  Pope  is  a 
bishop,  but  that  does  not  prevent  there  being  other  bishop* 


280  EVENINGS    WITH    THK    ROMANISTS. 

besides,  under  him ;  and  so,  tliough  the  Blessed  Jesus  be  our 
great  High  Priest,  it  does  not  hinder,  but  that  His  clergy  of 
His  Church  may  be  priests  also  under  him. 

I  saw  that  the  point  was  well  understood,  and  well  received 
by  many  of  his  co-rehgionists  present,  and  therefore  I  imme- 
diately thanked  him  for  putting  the  question,  and  especially 
for  the  manner  in  which  he  put  it,  adding,  that  this  was  the 
true  way  of  eliciting  truth — that  we  all,  whether  Protestants 
or  Romanists,  were  seeking  the  truth  for  the  salvation  of  our 
souls,  and  were  bound  ahke  to  search  for  it,  and  when  found, 
to  embrace  it  at  every  hazard.  This  sentimennt  was  warmly 
responded  to. 

I  then  proceeded  to  answer  him,  by  saying,  that  in  the 
whole  of  the  gospels  and  epistles,  indeed  in  the  whole  New 
Testament,  there  is  not  a  single  instance — not  one  solitary  in- 
stance— in  which  the  ministers  and  clergy  of  the  Church  are 
designated  as  priests,  or  have  that  term  applied  to  them,  which 
is  usually  translated  priests,  and  which  means  a  priest  who 
offers  sacrifice — a  sacrificing  priest.  They  are  variously  called 
ministers,  and  stewards,  and  pastors,  and  teachers,  and  dea- 
cons, and  presbyters,  and  bishops,  but  in  no  instance  whatever, 
are  they  designated  as  priests.  This,  I  said,  was  a  great  fact 
on  the  face  of  Holy  Scripture,  I  then  read — "  Now  ye  are 
the  body  of  Christ,  and  members  in  particular.  And  God 
hath  set  some  in  the  Church,  first  apostles,  secondarily  proph- 
ets, thirdly  teachers,  after  that  miracles,  then  gifts  of  healings, 
helps,  governments,  diversities  of  tongues." — 1  Cor.  xii.  27, 
28.  In  all  this,  there  is  no  mention  of  a  priest  or  a  priest- 
hood. I  then  read — "  And  he  gave  some,  apostles ;  and 
some,  prophets ;  and  some,  evangelists ;  and  some,  pastors  and 
teachers ;  for  the  perfecting  of  the  saints,  for  the  work  of  the 
ministry,  for  the  edifying  of  the  body  of  Christ." — Eph.  W.  11, 
12.  There  is  no  mention  of  a  priest  or  priesthood  in  all  this. 
I  then  read  1  Cor.  iv.  1,  then  1  Tim.  iii.  1,  then  iii.  8,  then 
Titus  i.  5.  I  then  remarked,  that  although  they  seem  spe- 
cially designed  to  describe  the  various  offices  in  the  Christian 
ministry  there  is  no  mention  of  that  of  priest,  or  of  a  priest- 


THE    CHRISTIAN    PRIESTHOOD.  281 

hood — that  this  was  a  great  fact  on  the  ftice  of  Holy  Scrip- 
ture ;  and  that  these  things  being  so,  the  name  of  priest  or 
priesthood,  ought  not  to  be  applied  to  the  ministry  of  the 
Church.  I  then  added  that  we  felt  that  having  such  an  High 
Priest,  all-willing  to  mediate — all-powerful  to  intercede — all- 
sufficient  for  our  necessities,  we  stand  in  need  of  no  other 
priest,  we  want  no  other,  and  to  teach  that  we  want  another, 
is  a  practical  impeachment  of  the  sufficiency  of  Jesus  Christ. 

The  effect  of  this  was  considerable,  especially  as  most  of 
those  present  examined  each  text  and  handed  the  Bible  from 
one  to  another,  that  all  might  see  for  themselves ;  and  it  was 
observed  that  there  was  no  material  difference  between  the 
Protestant  and  the  Roman  Catholic  translations.  There  are 
few  statements  which  have  generally  a  stronger  or  more  start- 
ling effect  upon  Roman  Catholics.  They  seem  to  feel  that 
the  claim  of  a  sacrificing  priesthood  is  the  very  life-blood  of 
their  system.  And  that  if  we  deprive  them  of  this,  it  is  like 
letting  out  their  life  itself;  and  yet  there  is  nothing  more  evi- 
dent than  that  in  Holy  Scripture  there  is  no  warrant  what- 
ever for  such  a  claim.  There  is  a  presbytery.  There  is  not  a 
priesthood.* 

It  was  after  some  delay,  that  the  person,  who  had  proposed 
the  previous  question,  and  to  whom  all  his  co-rehgionists 
looked  for  an  answer  to  my  statement,  said  that  he  thought 
there  were  places  in  the  Scriptures,  where  the  clergy  were 
called  priests,  and  their  holy  office  called  a  priesthood.  He 
held  his  Bible  open  and  read  1  Peter  ii.  5.  He  then  re- 
marked that  the  clergy  were  there  called  "  a  holy  priesthood," 
and  then  read  verse  9,  observing  that  they  were  called  "  a 
royal  priesthood,"  and  then  adding  that  in  the  Book  of  Rev- 
elations the  clergy  are  called  "  kings  and  priests."  He  said 
with  much  modesty,  that  he  was  not  much  of  a  scholar,  but 
that  he  had  read  that  in  all  these  places,  the  original  word 
was  exactly  the  one  that  meant  a  sacrificing  priesthood,  and 
that  this  was  the  doctrine  of  the  Catholic  Church — that  Jesus 

*  See  note  at  the  end  of  this  conversation. 


282  EVENINGS   WITH   THE    ROMANISTS. 

Christ  was  the  High  Priest,  and  that  the  clergy  were  the  in- 
ferior priests. 

"  You  are  wrong  there,"  exclaimed  one  of  his  own  friends 
"  for  it  is  his  holiness  the  Pope,  the  successor  of  the  Blessed 
St.  Peter,  is  the  High  Priest,  as  you  said  just  now ;  the  clergy 
are  his  inferior  priests." 

This  coming  from  a  Ptomanist,  caused  no  small  sensation, 
which  interrupted  us  for  a  few  moments.  It  had  the  effect  of 
drawing  out  a  few  more  remarks  and  brinffinaf  into  a  strono- 
light,  something  like  the  foreground  of  a  picture,  the  difficulty 
of  the  Romanist  explaining  the  high  priesthood  of  the  Jews. 
The  apostle  plainly  refers  it  to  Chiist.  The  Chm'ch  of  Rome 
as  plainly  refers  it  to  the  Pope. 

After  this  interruption  had  passed  away,  I  said,  that  it 
was  necessary  I  should  reply  to  what  he  had  stated  when  he 
cited  the  two  places  from  St.  Peter  and  the  third  from  the 
Revelation.  I  said  that  the  reply  was  sufficiently  obvious — 
that  the  title  of  priesthood  and  priest  was  given  to  all  the  be- 
lievers, all  the  members  of  the  Church — not  to  the  clergy 
alone,  but  to- the  laity  also — not  to  any  one  sacerdotal  caste 
of  men,  but  to  the  whole  body  of  the  people  of  God  ;  to  the 
men  and  to  the  women,  to  the  old  and  to  the  young — to  all 
the  faithful  alike.  This,  I  went  on  to  say,  was  apparent  from 
the  inscriptions  of  the  Epistle.  It  is  addressed,  not  to  the 
clergy  alone,  but  "  to  tlie  strangers,  scattered  throughout 
Poutus,  Galatia,  Cappadocia,  Asia,  and  Bithynia."  It  is  thus 
addressed  to  them  who  were  redeemed  by  Jesus  Chri^,  verse 
18 — to  them  who  were  born  again  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  and 
had  purified  their  souls  in  obeying  the  truth,  verse  22 — to 
them  who,  coming  as  living  stones,  were  built  up  into  a  Tem- 
ple unto  God,  and  so  built  up  on  Jesus  Christ  as  the  true  rock 
of  their  foundation,  ii.  5.  The  Epistle  is  addressed  to  all  such, 
whether  clei'gy  or  people.  And,  I  continued,  among  these 
were  both  men  and  women,  both  husbands  and  wives,  and 
that  this  was  apparent  from  the  third  chapter,  where  both  men 
and  women  are  expressly  mentioned,  and  again  from  the  fifth 
chapter,  where  both  clergy  and  people  are  mentioned.     To 


THE    CHRISTIAN   PRIESTHOOD.  283 

these,  I  added — to  all  these  alike,  as  the  faithful  people  of 
God,  the  appellation  of  a  holy  priesthood,  and  "  a  royal  priest- 
hood," belonged.  They  were  all  alike,  and  I  read  the  verse  as 
I  said  it — they  were  all  alike  addressed  by  St.  Peter,  as  a  spir- 
itual house,  a  chosen  people,  a  holy  nation,  a  peculiar  people, 
and  a  royal  priesthood.  It  is  in  the  same  sense  it  is  used  in 
the  Book  of  Revelation.  In  Christianity  there  is  no  sacerdotal 
class — no  priestly  caste.  The  "holy  priesthood  to  offer  up 
SPIRITUAL  SACRIFICES  acceptable  to  God,  by  Jesus  Christ,"  is 
the  oflSce  and  inheritance  of  every  believer  alike,  of  men  and 
women  alike  ;  it  belongs  to  no  class  and  no  caste ;  and  the 
humblest  peasant  man,  and  the  lowliest  peasant  woman,  if 
only  they  are  the  faithful  cliildren  of  Jesus  Christ,  are  as  much 
members  of  this  priesthood,  as  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury, 
or  the  Bishop  of  Rome. 

Some  minutes  were  here  g-iven  by  all  present  to  the  careful 
examination  of  the  places  cited  in  this  first  Epistle  of  Peter. 
There  was  much  comparing  of  translations,  and  much  con- 
versation on  each  point.  The  result  was  very  satisfactory,  as 
showing  that  several  were  convinced  I  had  given  the  true  in- 
terpretation of  the  Scriptures. 

I  said  to  them  in  conclusion,  that  they  ought  to  keep  in 
mind,  that  there  can  he  no  saciifice  if  there  be  no  priest ;  and 
that  therefore,  there  can  be  no  true  sacrifice  in  the  mass,  as 
their  is  no  true  priest  to  sacrifice  it.  I  added  that  on  the 
next  evening,  I  would  open  on  that  part  of  the  subject.  I 
then  endeavored  to  improve  the  subject  to  all  present,  by  en- 
larging on  the  comforts  of  having  such  a  High  Priest  as 
Christ,  to  whom  we  could  come  in  every  time  of  need — to 
confess  to  Him  our  sins,  to  receive  of  Him  forgiveness,  and  to 
ask  of  Him  the  grace  to  keep  us  in  the  future. 

I  then  dwelt  on  his  sympathy  for  us  in  all  our  wants,  neces- 
sities, sorrows,  and  temptations.  I  called  their  attention  par- 
ticularly to  the  latter  part  of  the  fourth  chapter  of  this  epistle 
to  the  Hebrews,  where  it  is  said  that  all  within  us,  all  our 
inner  nature  was  known  to  him — that  he  as  God  knew  all 
that  was  in  us,  our  infirmities,  son'ows,  trials  and  temptations 


284  EVENINGS    WITH   THE   ROMANISTS. 

— that  he,  as  man,  had  so  to  speak,  a  personal  and  experi- 
mental acquaintance  with  all  that  we  require,  and  that  thus 
he  was  a  High  Priest  who  could  have  compassion  on  our  in- 
firmities, and  pity  those  who  were  astray,  and  sympathize  with 
those  that  were  under  trial ;  and  finally  that  with  such  a  High 
Priest,  we  may  come  with  confidence,  with  all  the  loving  con- 
fidence of  loving  children,  to  our  Heavenly  Father,  Saviour 
and  God,  and  we  shall  ever  find  grace  and  mercy  in  our  time 
of  need.  "  He  is  able  also  to  save  them  to  the  uttermost  that 
come  unto  God  by  him,  seeing  he  ever  liveth  to  make  inter- 
cession for  them.  For  such  an  High  Priest  became  us,  who  is 
holy,  hannless,  undefiled,  separate  from  sinners,  and  made 
higher  than  the  heavens ;  who  needeth  not  daily,  as  those 
high  priests,  to  oflfer  up  sacrifice,  first  for  his  own  sins,  and 
then  for  the  people's :  for  this  he  did  once,  when  he  ofiered 
up  himself." — Hebrews,  vii.  25-27. 

I  have  always  found  that  the  hearts  of  the  people  were 
touched  by  simple  and  clear  statements  as  to  the  love  of  God, 
the  work  of  Christ,  and  generally  as  to  the  great  truths  of  the 
Gospel.  Often  after  the  heat  of  the  controversy  has  passed 
away,  these  truths  come  like  balm  upon  the  heart,  and  many 
a  fierce  eye  is  moistened  by  the  big  tear,  and  many  a  bold 
face  is  shaded  by  the  hand,  and  many  a  high  head  is  seen  to 
hang  down,  and  feelings  are  touched  and  hearts  are  warmed, 
and  the  roug-h  hand  is  outstretched  with  words  of  honest 
thankfulness.     It  certainly  was  so  on  the  present  occasion. 

Note. — [The  Holy  Scriptures  frequently  speak  of  "  The  Priests  and 
Elders"  of  the  Jews.  The  original  words  would  have  been  more  suit- 
ably translated — "  The  Sacrificers  and  Presbyters"  of  the  Jews.  The 
former,  that  is,  the  Priests  or  Sacrificers,  ceased  with  the  Jewish  dis- 
pensation. Their  Priesthood  and  Sacrifices  were  typical,  and  passed 
away  when  Jesus  Christ,  the  true  Priest  and  Sacrificer,  was  come  ; 
and  exercised  the  office  and  made  the  atonement.  The  latter,  that  is, 
the  Elders  or  Presbyters,  were  continued,  or,  more  correctly  speaking, 
their  name  was  continued  in  the  Christian  dispensation,  and  applied  to 
the  Christian  Ministry. 

It  is  this  word  "  Presbyter,"  contracted  into  "  Prester,"  and  then  into 
"  Priest,"  that  is  applied  so  often  by  us  to  our  ministers.     It  is  not  in 


THE    CHRISTIAN    PRIESTHOOD.  285 

the  sense  of  hifievc,  a  Sacrificer,  the  word  applied  to  the  Jewish 
Priests ;  but  in  the  sense  of  npsaiSvTepoc,  a  Presbyter,  that  we  so  apply 
it.  The  Romanists  use  it  in  the  former  sense,  claiming  to  be  Sacri- 
ficers.  The  Protestants  use  it  in  the  latter,  claiming  only  to  be  Pres- 
byters.] 


THE   SACRIFICE    OF  THE    MASS. 

The  Love  of  Controversy  among  the  Irish  Peasantry — Curious  Illustration — The 
Sacrifice  of  Christ  as  the  only  Atonement  inconsistent  with  the  Doctrine  of  the 
Mass — The  Sacrifice  of  the  Mass  said  to  be  identical  with  that  of  Christ  upon  the 
Cross — Said  to  be  a  Repetition  or  Continuation  of  it — This  examined  or  compared 
with  Scripture — Such  a  Character  deprives  it  of  all  its  supposed  Eflicacy — Argu- 
ment as  to  the  Suflferings  entailed  upon  Christ  thus  involved  in  the  Mass — Several 
Contradictions  necessarily  involved  In  this  Doctrine — Passages  of  Scripture  exam- 
ined iu  connection  with  this  Subject. 

There  is  a  love  of  religious  discussion,  or  as  some  may  call 
it,  a  lope  of  controversy,  very  remarkable  among  the  Irish 
peasantry.  They  will  go  any  distance — undergo  any  fatigue — 
bear  any  inconvenience,  if  only  they  can  hear  a  discussion 
on  the  points  at  issue  between  the  Protestant  and  Romish 
Churches  ;  and  whenever  this  is  expected  between  persons  sup- 
posed to  be  competent,  there  never  will  be  wanted  an  ample 
assemblage  of  hearers.  To  such  an  extent  does  this  feeling 
prevail,  that  a  sermon  or  lecture  on  any  points  at  issue,  is  sure 
to  find  a  large  number  of  eager,  and  attentive,  and  intelligent 
listeners. 

That  much  of  this  peculiar  disposition  belongs  to  the  race 
is  very  probable.  It  seems  like  their  restlessness  and  pug- 
nacity, a  sort  of  national  characteristic.  It  is  very  certain 
that  these  discussions  are  attended  by  a  class  of  persons, 
thoughtless,  giddy,  heady,  irreligious,  who  can  hardly  be  sup- 
posed to  listen  from  any  deep  interest  in  religion.  And  yet 
they  do  listen  with  intense  and  rapt  attention. 

And  that  much  of  all  this  love  of  discussion,  springs  from 
a  deep  well-spring  of  religious  feeling,  seems  a  matter  of  cer- 
tainty. There  is  no  other  subject  that  commands  the  same 
influence.     And  as  it  is  impossible  to  know  the  Irish  peas- 


THE    SACRIFICE    OF   THE    MASS.  287 

antry  without  seeing  that  the  religious  element  forms  a  large 
portion  of  their  nature,  so  no  one  can  be  familiar  with  these 
discussions,  without  observing  that  the  thoughtful,  earnest, 
and  good  men  among  them,  are  thoroughly  absorbed  in  the 
argument  developed  in  these  discussions. 

And  the  eflfects  of  these  discussions  have  been  very  striking, 
not  only  upon  the  religiously-disposed,  but  upon  persons  who 
had  till  then  proved  the  enemies  of  all  real  religion.  In  my 
very  large  experience,  I  never  knew  a  single  instance  of  a 
Protestant  having  been  led  to  Romanism  by  them,  though  I 
have  known  many  who  were  awakened  in  such  discussions  to 
the  reality  of  true  religion.  And  on  the  other  hand,  I  have 
known  some  hundreds  of  Roman  Catholics,  so  influenced  by 
them,  as  not  only  to  embrace  Protestantism,  but  to  become 
earnest,  devout,  and  holy  Christians. 

So  intense  is  this  desire  to  hear  the  subject  discussed,  that 
no  opposition,  no  command,  no  threats  from  the  priests,  can 
prevent  their  attendance  wdien  there  is  a  prospect  of  that  at- 
tendance being  unknown.  Very  frequently  they  so  dread  the 
malediction  of  the  priest — they  so  dread  a  refusal  to  church 
their  wives,  or  baptize  their  children,  or  to  anoint  the  dying, 
or  to  marry  the  betrothed — they  so  dread  a  refusal  to  do  these 
thincrs  for  the  families  and  relations  of  those  who  attend  such 
discussions,  that  they  fear  to  attend  where  there  is  a  likelihood 
of  their  attendance  becoming  known  to  their  priests ;  while 
at  the  same  time  ifthey  are  convinced  they  can  do  so  without 
their  knowledge  they  will  be  sure  to  be  present. 

A  very  ludicrous  scene  that  occurred  in  a  parish  church  in 
the  South  of  Ireland,  will  illustrate  this.  A  clergyman  well- 
known  for  his  eloquence,  was  announced  to  preach  on  some 
controverted  doctrine.  It  was  in  a  district  almost  exclusively 
Roman  Catholic,  and  on  the  appointed  evening  the  church 
was  filled  almost  to  suffocation  by  the  members  of  the  Church 
of  Rome.  As  it  was  in  the  autumn  of  the  year  the  shades  of 
evening  had  descended  and  it  was  necessary  to  light  the  church, 
and  the  preacher  could  look  on  a  dense  mass  of  earnest  and 
attentive  men,  occupying  every  available  space.     Every  seat 


288  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

and  the  floor  of  eveiy  pew  was  occupied,  with  at  least  three 
times  the  number  which  they  originally  were  calculated  to 
accommodate ;    while  the  aisle  was  one  solid  mass  of  men, 
standing  with  eager  and  fixed  gaze  upon  the  preacher,  and 
hanging  with  rapt  and  absorbed  attention  upon  every  word 
that  fell  from  his  lips.     All  was  still — it  seemed  as  if  the  mass 
of  people  held  their  breath,  lest  their  very  breathings  should 
disturb  the  voice  of  the  preacher.     Nothing  else  could  be 
heard  but  his  lo^-ing  and  burning  words.     Suddenly  there  was 
a  cry  at  the  entrance.     There  was  a  rush,  and  a  rude  demand 
for  admission,  by  one  endeavoring  to  force  his  way  through 
the  thick  masses  of  the  people  standing  in  the  aisle.     The 
preacher  paused.     Every  eye  was  turned  toward  the  intruder. 
In  a   moment  a  cry  ran  through  the  church.     "It  is  the 
priest — the  priest ! "     In  the  next  moment  there  was  a  voice 
"  Put  out  the  light,  and  then  he  can't  see  us  !  "     In  an  instant 
the  active  men  sprung  on  the  tops  of  the  pews,  and  every 
light  was  extinguished.     A  low-toned  voice  was  heard  through 
the  church,  "  The  priest  can  not  see  us  now,  ]\I ,"  address- 
ing the  preacher,  "  you  can  preach  away  now,  and  we  can 
listen  in  the  dark."     A  loud  cheer  even  in  so  unsuitable  a  place 
followed  this,  and  the  preacher  continued  his  address,  while 
the  whole  assembly  was  wrapped  in  darkness,  except  from  one 
small  candle  in  the  pulpit,  to  enable  him  to  read  the  vai-ious 
references  to  the  Scriptures. 

The  evening  following  that  on  which  I  had  spoken  on  the 
priesthood  of  the  Church,  there  was  a  large  attendance  at  my  ' 
cottage  lecture.  I  had  concluded  the  usual  prayers,  and  had 
commenced  to  read  the  Holy  Scriptures,  when  a  request  was 
made  and  urged  Avith  great  earnestness,  that  I  would  remove 
my  seat  to  the  doorway,  and  speak  there,  so  that  those  who 
were  standing  without  might  have  an  opportunity  of  hearing 
as  well  as  those  within.  During  the  time  occupied  in  prayer, 
a  large  and  dense  crowd  of  persons  gathered  around  the  cot- 
tage, and  as  there  was  no  space  within,  they  proposed  my 
taking  my  position  at  the  doorway,  so  that  they  all  might  hear 
alike.      A   deep  interest   seemed   to   pervade   all,   and    the 


THE   SACRIFICE    OF    THE    MASS.  289 

desire  to  hear  seemed  universal.     I  gladly  complied  with  the 
request. 

I  read  the  liii.  chapter  of  Isaiah.  I  gave  a  general  exposi- 
tiou  of  its  subject  matter,  and  dwelt  on  the  divine  compassion 
and  love  which  it  exhibited,  and  the  obedience  and  gratitude 
it  demanded  of  us  in  return.  I  then  employed  it  to  illustrate 
the  subject  of  the  evening. 

I  said  that  our  subject  was  sacritice — the  alone  sacrifice  of 
Jesus  Christ — that  if  there  was  any  one  truth  more  essentially 
Christian  than  another,  it  was  that  the  sacrifice  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  upon  the  qross  was  the  alone  atoning  or  propitiat- 
ing sacrifice  for  sin.  All  other  sacrifices,  as  that  of  bulls,  and 
goats,  and  calves,  and  lambs,  under  the  levitical  law,  were  but 
ty]3es.  This  was  the  original  and  antitype  of  all.  All  other 
sacrifices  were  but  the  shadows.  This  was  the  substance  of 
all.  It  was  this  alone  satisfied  the  demands  of  the  divine  law, 
and  procured  the  remission  and  forgiveness  of  our  sins.  I 
added,  that  it  was  just  here  that  the  Protestant  and  Romau 
Churches  were  at  issue.  Protestants  hold  that  there  is  no  other 
sacrifice  to  atone  or  propitiate  for  sin.  Romanists  believe  that 
what  they  call  the  Mass  is  a  propitiatory  or  atoning  sacrifice 
for  the  sins  of  both  the  livinof  and  the  dead. 

I  proceeded  to  say  that  the  language  of  the  Holy  Scriptures 
is  full  and  explicit.  It  expressly  states  that  all  the  preceding 
sacrifices  were  but  shadows.  It  expressly  states,  that  when 
the  substance  came,  those  shadows  vanished  away.  The 
prophet  describes  Jesus  Christ  as  the  sacrificial  victim,  "  who 
was  wounded  for  our  transgressions.  He  ^vas  bruised  for  our 
iniquities,  the  chastisement  of  our  peace  was  upon  him,  and 
with  his  stripes  we  were  healed  :  All  we  like  sheep  have  gone 
astray,  we  have  turned  every  one  to  his  own  way,  and  the 
Lord  hath  laid  on  him  the  iniquity  of  us  all." — Isaiah  liii.  5. 
One  apostle  says,  "Christ  being  an  High  Priest  of  good 
things  to  come,  by  a  greater  and  more  perfect  tabernacle,  not 
made  with  hands,  that  is  to  say,  not  of  this  building  ;  neither 
by  the  blood  of  goats  and  calves,  but  by  His  own  blood  He 
entered  in  once  into  the  holy  place,  having  obtained  eternal 

13 


290  EVENINGS    WITH   THE    ROMANISTS. 

redemption  for  us.  For  if  the  blood  of  bulls  and  of  g-oats, 
and  the  ashes  of  an  heifer  sprinkling  the  unclean,  sanctifieth 
to  the  purifying  of  the  flesh,  how  much  more  shall  the  blood 
of  Christ,  who  through  the  eternal  Spirit  offered  himself  with- 
out spot  to  God,  purge  your  conscience  firom  dead  works  to 
serve  the  living  God." — Heb.  ix.  11-14.  Another  apostle 
says  :  "  Ye  know  ye  were  not  redeemed  with  corruptible  things, 
as  silver  and  gold,  from  your  vain  conversation  received  by 
tradition  from  your  fathers,  but  with  the  precious  blood  of 
Christ,  as  of  a  lamb  without  blemish  and  without  spot." — 1 
Peter  i.  18,  19.  This  is  the  sacrifice  tlj|it  reconciles  the  sinner 
to  his  God.  "  It  pleased  the  Father,  that  in  Him  should  all 
fullness  dwell,  and  having  made  peace  through  the  blood  of 
His  Cross,  by  Him  to  reconcile  all  things  unto  Himself;  by 
Him,  I  say,  whether  they  be  things  in  earth  or  things  in 
Heaven.  And  you,  that  were  sometime  alienated  and  enemies 
in  your  mind  by  wicked  works,  yet  now  hath  He  reconciled  in 
the  body  of  his  flesh  through  death,  to  present  you  holy  and 
unblamable  and  unreprovable  in  His  sight." — Col.  i.  19-22. 
This  is  the  sacrifice  thafefiects  atonement.  "  God  commend- 
eth  His  love  toward  us,  in  that,  while  we  were  yet  sinners, 
Christ  died  for  us ;  much  more  then,  being  now  justified  by 
His  blood,  we  shall  be  saved  from  wrath  through  Him  :  for  if 
when  we  Avere  enemies,  we  were  reconciled  to  God  by  the 
death  of  His  Son,  much  more,  being  reconciled,  we  shall  be 
saved  by  His  life  :  and  not  only  so,  but  we  also  joy  in  God 
through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  by  whom  we  have  received  the 
atonement." — Rom.  v.  8-12.  This  is  the  sacrifice  that  a.Q,- 
complishes  J5?•oJ9^7^a^^o«.  "  K  any  man  sin,  we  have  an  advo- 
cate with  the  Father,  Jesus  Christ  the  righteous  ;  and  he  is  the 
propitiation  for  our  sins,  and  not  for  ours  only,  but  also  for  the 
sins  of  the  whole  world." — 1  John  ii.  1,  2.  Here  is  the  lan- 
guage of  Scripture,  proclaiming,  more  distinctly  than  ever  the 
thunders  of  Sinai  proclaimed  the  law,  the  great  and  cardinal 
truth  of  the  Gospel,  that  the  sacrifice  of  Jesus  Christ  on  the 
Cross  is  the  one  sacrifice,  oblation,  and  satisfaction  for  the  sins 
of  man. 


THE    SACRIFICE    OF    THE    MASS.  291 

Having  sufficiently  establislied  this  position,  I  proceeded  to 
make  it  bear  on  the  question  before  us.  I  proceeded  to  show 
that  the  sacrifice  of  Jesus  Christ  being  once  offered,  remains 
forever  the  only  sacrifice  or  ofiering  for  sin.  The  language  of 
the  Holy  Scriptures  is  as  follows  :  "  By  one  offering  He 
hath  perfected  forever  them  that  are  sanctified,  whereof  the 
Holy  Ghost  also  is  a  witness  to  us ;  for  after  that  He  had  said 
before,  This  is  the  covenant  that  I  will  make  with  them  after 
those  days,  saitli  the  Lord,  I  will  put  my  laws  into  their  hearts, 
and  in  their  minds  will  I  wi'ite  them,  and  their  sins  and  ini- 
quities will  I  remembeir  no  more.  Now  where  remission  of 
these  is,  there  is  no  more  offering  for  sin.^'' — Heb.  x.  14-18. 
There  remaineth,  then,  no  more  offering  for  sin.  The  phrase 
is  changed  a  few  verses  afterward,  where  He  says,  '■'■There  re- 
maineth no  more  sacrifice  for  sins.''^ — Verse  35.  ,  This  language 
excludes  all  else  but  the  death  on  the  Cross  from  being  a  pro- 
pitiatory sacrifice — a  sacrifice  for  sin.  And  on  language  thus 
full  and  clear  and  explicit,  I  afiirmed  the  doctrine,  without 
which  the  future  would  frown  with  the  blackness  of  despair ; 
but  with  which,  the  future  brightens  with  the  hope  of  glory — 
a  doctrine  which  we  read  in  all  the  records  of  the  past — 
which  we  feel  in  all  the  experience  of  the  present — which  we 
trace  in  all  the  predictions  of  the  future — a  doctrine  of  which 
prophets  sung,  which  apostles  preached,  for  which  confessors 
suflfered,  for  which  martyrs  died — the  doctrine  that  the  ofier- 
ing of  Christ  once  made  is  the  perfect  redemption,  propitia- 
tion, and  satisfaction  for  all  sins.  And  that  there  is  no  other 
than  this — that  its  sufficiency  excludes  the  necessity  of  any^ 
.  other,  and  that  the  language  of  Scripture  absolutely  excludes^ 
any  other.  s^ 

I  argued  thus  :  If  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  upon  the  Cross 
was  a  full,  perfect,  and  sufficient  sacrifice  for  om*  sins,  then  do 
we  stand  in  need  of  none  other.  "  He,"  says  St.  John,  "  is 
the  propitiation  for  our  sins ;  and  not  for  ours  only,  but  also 
for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world."  If  this  be  true  of  the  sac- 
rifice of  the  Cross,  then  there  is  no  need  of  the  sacrifice  of  the 
Mass.     If  the  sacrifice  of  the  Cross  takes  away  all  our  sins, 


292  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

then  there  are  no  sins  for  the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass  to  take 
away.  And  for  any  Church  to  teach  that  the  sacrifice  of  the 
Mass  does  propitiate  and  take  away  our  sins  as  efficaciously  as 
the  sacrifice  of  the  Cross — for  any  Chui-ch  to  teach  that  the 
sacrifice  of  the  Mass  is  necessary,  after  the  sacrifice  of  the 
Cross,  for  the  propitiation  of  our  sins — for  any  Church  to  teach 
this,  is  all  one  with  saying  the  sacrifice  of  the  Cross  was  not 
sufficient ;  it  is  all  one  with  saying,  that  it  wanted  the  asssist- 
ance  of  the  Mass ;  it  is  all  one  with  placing  the  sacrifice  of 
the  Mass  on  a  level  with  the  sacrifice  of  the  Cross ;  it  is  all 
one  with  setting  up  the  Mass  as  a  partner  or  a  rival  to  the 
Cross  in  the  work  of  propitiation.  It  is  an  impeachment  of 
the  honor  of  Christ ;  it  is  an  affront  upon  His  sacrifice,  it  is 
an  injury  to  His  blood,  it  is  a  blasphemy  against  His  Cross  ; 
it  is,  in  the  language  of  the  Article  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, "  a  blasphemous  fable,"  and  therefore  "  a  dangerous  deceit." 
When  I  came  thus  far,  I  paused,  and  in  order  to  induce 
conversation,  asked,  whether  I  was  fully  comprehended,  and 
whether  there  was  any  one  who  desired  to  ask  a  question. 

My  proposal  was  accepted  by  one  who  was  in  the  habit  of 
discussing  such  questions  in  the  houses  of  the  various  inhabit- 
ants who  were  interested  in  these  subjects. 

He  expressed  his  entire  assent  to  all  that  had  been  stated 
as  to  the  fullness  of  the  atonement,  in  the  sacrifice  of  Jesus 
Christ — that  the  doctrine  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  was 
precisely  the  same  as  had  been  described  by  me  from  the  Holy 
Scriptures — that  there  was  no  difference  whatever  between 
the  Protestants  and  Roman  Catholics  about  it — that  although 
there  was  no  difference  about  the  sacrifice  of  Jesus  Christ, 
there  was  a  difference  between  the  Churches  on  the  Mass,  or  as 
Protestants  have  it,  the  Lord's  Supper.  The  difference  is  this — 
the  Roman  Catholics  look  on  the  Mass  as  the  very  same  as  the 
sacrifice  of  Jesus  Christ— as  a  repetition  or  continuation  of  it ; 
while  Protestants  think  the  Lord's  Supper  only  the  remembrance 
or  memorial  of  that  sacrifice.  Now,  he  said,  as  we  of  the 
Church  of  Rome  believe  the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass  to  be  one  and 
the  same — completely  and  identically  the  same  as  the  sacrifice 


THE    SACRIFICE    OP   THE    MASS.  293 

on  the  cross,  having  by  transubstantiation  the  same  Jesus 
Christ  in  body  and  spirit  the  sacrificial  victim,  the  same  body 
killed,  and  the  same  blood  shed,  in  every  thing  the  same,  one 
and  identical  sacrifice ;  we  believe  that,  if  that  on  the  cross 
was  a  true  and  propitiatory  and  atoning  sacrifice  for  sins, 
then  that  in  the  Mass  must  be  a  true  and  propitiatory  and 
atoning  sacrifice  for  sins  also.  Whatever  we  believe  of  one, 
we  believe  of  the  other,  because  they,  by  transubstantiation, 
are  one  and  the  same.  We  can  see  no  difierence  whatever 
between  them  ;  if  indeed  the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass  was  another 
and  distinct  and  difterent  thinjy  from  the  sacrifice  of  Jesus 
Christ,  then  it  would  be  an  implying  that  that  of  Jesus  Christ 
was  not  sufficient,  and  required  an  additional  sacrifice ;  but 
this  is  not  the  case  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  the  sacrifice  of  the 
Mass  is  not  a  difterent  or  additional  sacrifice,  but  is  one  and 
the  same  identically  with  the  sacrifice  of  the  Cross.  The  cere- 
mony performed  by  our  priest  in  our  chapel,  is  the  very  same 
as  the  scene  performed  on  Mount  Calvary,  and  is  in  reality  a 
repetition  or  continuation  of  it;  its  substance  by  transub- 
stantiation is  the  very  same,  and,  therefore,  its  value  for  pro- 
pitiation or  atonement  for  sin  must  be  the  very  same. 

I  asked,  as  he  concluded,  whether  he  meant  to  identify  the 
sacrifice  of  the  Mass  with  the  sacrifice  of  Jesus  Christ — to 
identify  the  ceremony  performed  by  the  modern  Roman  priests 
with  the  crucifixion  perpetrated  by  the  ancient  Roman  soldiers 
— to  identify  the  services  of  the  Church  of  Rome  with  the 
awful  tragedy  upon  Calvary  ?  I  asked  this  with  the  view  of 
fixing  the  minds  of  all  present  upon  the  real  nature  of  the 
doctrine. 

He  replied  in  the  afiirmative,  adding,  that  the  Church  be- 
lieved in  transubstantiation,  and  that  this  made  the  sacrifice  of 
the  Mass  the  same  as  the  sacrifice  on  the  cross. 

"I  do  not  believe  that,"  exclaimed  one  of  the  Roman 
Catholics,  "  for  in  the  Mass  there  is  no  cross  at  all ;  and  even 
when  the  priest-holds  up  the  blessed  Jesus  in  his  hands,  and 
elevates  the  Host  for  us  to  adore,  there  is  no  cross,  except  the 
sign  of  the  cross  which  he  makes  with  his  hand ;  there  is  no 


294  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

crucifixion — no  thieves  on  either  side,  and  above  all,  no  blessed 
Virgin  at  his  feet,  no,  nor  any  soldiers  to  mock  and  run  the 
long  spear  into  his  side."  This  was  spoken  with  all  the 
seriousness  of  an  earnest  man. 

"  Neither  do  I  believe  it,"  added  another,  amid  the  sen- 
sation created  by  this  objection,  "  for  the  Blessed  Mother  of 
God  was  at  the  crucifixion,  and  so  was  the  holy  Magdalene ; 
it  was  then  the  sword  pierced  through  and  through  the  heart 
of  the  blessed  Virgin  herself,  and  there  is  nothing  of  all  that 
in  the  Mass ;  if  the  Mass  were  the  same  as  the  crucifixion, 
surely  the  blessed  Virgin  would  be  there."  This  was  said 
with  great  energy  of  manner. 

"  And  sure  she  is  there,"  said  another  Romanist,  in  a  voice 
that  savored  of  sly  irony,  "  she  is  there — in  the  picture  over 
the  altar." 

A  titter  ran  through  the  room,  at  the  tone  in  which  this 
was  uttered,  and  I  hastened  to  repress  it ;  such  occasions  are 
constantly  occurring  among  a  people  whose  love  of  a  smart 
saying  can  not  be  stifled  even  by  the  gravest  and  most  serious 
subjects.  They  are  intensely  religious,  but  at  the  same  time 
intensely  humorous. 

I  said  that  the  statement  made  by  our  Roman  Catholic 
friend  was  of  the  gravest  kind,  and  deserved  our  gravest 
examination.  He  had  said  that  tlie  sacrifice  of  the  Mass  by 
the  priest  is  identically  the  same  as  the  sacrifice  of  Jesus 
Christ  by  the  soldiers.  This  makes  one  as  precious,  as  meri- 
torious, as  influential,  as  acceptable  Vvith  God  in  propitiation 
or  atonement  for  sins  as  the  other.  Indeed,  if  they  are  one 
and  the  same,  then  if  the  sacrifice  on  the  cross  was  able  to 
save  a  lost  and  sinful  world,  the  same  will  be  equally  true  of 
the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass — it  will  be  able  to  save  a  lost  and 
ruined  world. 

I  was  here  interrupted  by  a  Protestant,  who  said,  "  If  the 
sacrifice  of  the  Cross  has  saved  us  by  having  made  atonement 
for  the  sins  of  all  them  that  believe,  there  can  be  no  necessity 
for  the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass  to  do  it  over  again  ;  I  understood 
that  to  be  the  argument  first  stated,  that  to  ofier  the  sacrifice 


THE    SACRIFICE    OF   THE    MASS.  295 

of  the  Mass  in  order  to  propitiate  or  atone  for  sins,  was  to  im- 
ply the  insufRcieucy  or  iuefficacy  of  the  work  done  by  the 
sacrifice  of  the  cross  which  preceded  it." 

I  continued  to  say,  that  such  was  my  argument,  and  that 
our  friend  had  not  answered  it  by  saying  that  the  sacrifice  of 
the  cross,  and  the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass  were  the  same ;  for  it 
is  clear,  that  if  the  sacrifice  of  the  cross  were  sufiicient,  there 
can  be  no  need  of  any  repetition  or  continuation.  However, 
I  added,  we  may  as  well  confute  it. 

Our  first  argument,  to  prove  that  the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass 
is  not  a  repetition  or  continuation  of  the  sacrifice  of  the  Cross, 
is  this :  The  Scriptures  expressly  state,  that  our  Lord  was  to 
die  once,  and  only  once — that  His  death  was  never  to  be  re- 
peated— and  that  by  that  one  death,  the  whole  propitiation  or 
atonement  was  perfected. 

The  Scriptures,  which  teach  this,  are  many  and  explicit. 
We  refer  to  the  following :  "  Christ  being  raised  from  the 
dead,  dieth  no  more  :  death  hath  no  more  dominion  over 
Him.  For  in  that  He  died,  He  died  unto  sin  once,  but  in  that 
He  liveth,  he  liveth  unto  God." — Rom.  vi.  9,  10.  These 
words  exclude  all  repetition  of  his  death,  for  "  He  died  unto 
sin  ance,^''  and  "  He  dieth  no  mover  We  then  refer  to  the  fol- 
lowing place  :  "  Nor  yet  that  He  should  oflfer  Himself  often, 
as  the  high  priest  entereth  into  the  holy  place  every  year  with 
the  blood  of  others ;  for  then  must  He  often  have  suffered 
since  the  foundation  of  the  world  ;  but  now,  once  in  the  end 
of  the  world,  hath  He  appeared  to  put  away  sin  by  the  sacri- 
fice of  Himself.  And  as  it  is  appointed  unto  men  once  to  die, 
but  after  this  the  judgment,  so  Clirist  was  once  offered  to  bear 
the  sins  of  many ;  and  unto  them  that  look  for  Him  shall  He 
appear  the  second  time,  without  sin  unto  salvation." — Heb.  ix. 
25-28.  It  is  here  stated,  that  He  was  once  offered  as  a  sacri- 
fice for  sin,  and  that  He  was  not  to  be  offered  often ;  which 
utterly  excludes  the  possibility  of  His  being  offered  in  the  sac- 
rifice of  the  Mass.  We  again  refer  to  the  following  Scripture : 
"  We  are  sanctified  through  the  offering  of  the  body  of  Jesus 
Christ  once  for  all.     And  every  priest  standeth  daily  minister- 


296  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

ing  and  offering  oftentimes  tlie  same  sacrifices,  which  can 
never  take  away  sins ;  but  this  man,  after  He  had  offered  one 
sacrifice  for  sins,  forever  sat  down  on  the  right  hand  of  God, 
from  henceforth  expecting  till  His  enemies  be  made  his  foot- 
stool. For  by  one  offering  He  hath  perfected  forever  them 
that  are  sanctified." — Heb.  x.  10-14.  In  these  words  there  is 
still  that  remarkable  reiteration  of  Christ  beingf  once  offered, 
and  that  by  that  oftering  "  once  for  all,"  the  whole  work  of 
propitiation  has  been  perfected.  It  looks  like  the  forecastiugs  of 
Infinite  Wisdom — it  looks  like  the  anticipations  of  Omnisci- 
ence— ^it  looks  as  if  the  Holy  Spirit  had  foreseen  the  evil  and 
prepared  the  remedy.  The  inference  is  legitimate,  that  the 
death  of  Jesus  Christ  was  not  to  be  repeated — that  His  death 
was  not  be  continued,  for  He  arose  from  the  dead — that  the 
offering  on  the  cross  was  not  to  be  continued,  for  he  was  taken 
down  from  the  cross  ;  and,  therefore,  that  the  sacrifice  of  the 
Mass  is  neither  a  repetition  nor  a  continuation  of  the  sacrifice 
of  the  Cross. 

I  had  scarcely  concluded,  when  our  opposing  friend  again 
broke  in,  saying,  that  the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass  was  not  a  repeti- 
tion, but  a  continuation  of  the  saciifice  of  the  Cross. 

One  of  the  Protestants  present,  a  very  aged  and  venerable- 
looking  man,  with  long  snow-white  hair  streaming  upon  his 
shoulders,  one  thoroughly  versed  in  the  Scriptures,  and  uni- 
versally respected  for  his  ^^ersonal  piety,  now  stood  up,  and 
resting  both  his  hands  on  his  staff  and  leaning  forward  upon 
it,  as  with  the  weakness  of  many  years,  he  said,  it  was  very 
sad,  that  men,  in  speaking  about  God  and  their  souls,  should 
make  so  much  of  difference  between  a  repetition  and  a  contin- 
uation, or  rather  a  continuation  that  was  not  a  repetition. 
When  men  were  arguing  in  that  way  it  seldom  led  to  any 
good  results,  either  in  the  speakers  or  in  the  hearers.  But,  he 
said,  that  it  appeared  to  his  simple  judgment,  that  as  each 
mass  is  in  itself  a  distinct  and  separate  ceremony — as  each 
mass  has  a  beginning,  and  an  end — as  each  mass  is  perfoimed 
at  different  hours  and  different  days,  and  in  different  parishes 
and  different  lands,  and  by  different  j)riests,  and  for  different 


THE    SACRIFICE    OF    THE    MASS.  297 

congregations,  so  they  can  not  be  a  continuation,  but  a  repeti- 
tion. It  is  a  repetition  of  the  same  ceremony  again  and 
again.  And  when  the  priests  demand  money  for  masses  for 
the  repose  of  the  souls  of  tlie  dead,  they  always  count  the 
number  of  distinct  and  separate  masses,  as  being  distinct  and 
separate  repetitions  of  the  same  ceremony.  They  always 
count  as  one  or  ten  or  twenty  masses,  and  not  as  one  continu- 
ing mass.  But  in  any  light  such  repeated  or  continual  sacri- 
fices can  not  be  eftectual  to  take  away  sin.  Even  if  we  were  to 
suppose  that  the  mass  is  a  sacrifice  ofiered  upon  the  altars  of 
Eome,  year  by  year,  and  day  by  day,  continually,  such  a  sup- 
position— zealously  as  they  contend  for  it — would  be  a  death- 
blow to  the  propitiatory  character  assumed  for  it.  It  is  the 
record  of  Revelation,  that  those  "  sacrifices,  which' are  offered 
year  by  year  continually,  can  never  make  the  comers  thereunto 
perfect. ^^ — lleb.  x.  1.  And  again  :  "  Every  priest  standeth 
daily  ministering  and  offering  oftentimes  the  same  sacrifices, 
which  can  never  take  aioay  sin.'''' — Ileb.  x.  11.  If,  then,  the 
sacrifice  of  the  Mass  is  the  same  sacrifice,  offered  year  by  year 
continually — if  it  is  a  sacrifice  ministered  daily  and  offered 
oftentimes — if,  in  short,  the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass  is  that  which 
they  would  persuade  us  it  is — namely,  a  repetition  or  continu- 
ation of  the  sacrifice  of  the  Cross,  yearly  and  daily  offered — 
then,  on  their  own  showing — on  their  own  principle — the  sac- 
rifice of  the  Mass  can  not  be  a  propitiatory  sacrifice  ;  it  is  a 
sacrifice  that  "  can  never  take  away  sin." 

There  was  something  in  the  manner  and  matter  of  this  ad- 
dress, especially  as  coming  from  a  very  aged  man,  and  one  of 
their  own  class,  that  had  a  striking  effect  on  all  present.  An 
argument  well  expressed  and  coming  from  one  of  their  own 
class  has  always  great  weight  among  the  j^easantry.  They 
seem  to  feel  a  kind  of  pride  in  it ;  and  though,  perhaps,  op- 
posed to  their  opinions,  they  yet  feel  pleased  at  its  coming 
from  one  of  themselves.  And  certainly,  on  the  present  occa- 
sion, there  was  no  disposition  to  reply  to  it.  In  the  silence 
that  ensued,  I  resumed  the  subject. 

I  stated  that  there  was  another  argument  on  this  point,  and 

13* 


298  EVENINGS    WITH   THE    ROMANISTS. 

reminded  them  that  it  liad  been  stated  that  the  sacrifice  of 
tlie  Mass  was  identically  the  same  as  the  sacrifice  of  the  Cross. 
On  this  I  argued — if  this  be  true,  then  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
must  sufier  all  the  agonies  of  the  sacrifice  of  the  Cross  every 
time  He  is  offered  in  the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass.  This  argu- 
ment is  founded  on  the  words  of  the  a250stle,  where  he  says 
that  Christ  was  to  be  offered  but  once.  "  Nor  yet  that  He 
should  offer  Himself  often,  as  the  high  priest  entereth  into 
the  holy  place  every  year  with  the  blood  of  others  ;  for  then 
must  He  often  have  suffered  since  the  foundation  of  the 
world ;  but  now  once  in  the  end  of  the  world  hath  he  ap- 
peared to  put  away  sin  by  the  sacrifice  of  Himself."  It  is 
here  stated  that  Christ  was  to  be  offered  but  once,  and  that 
if  He  was-  offered  often,  then  He  must  have  suffered  often. 
As  He  could  not  be  offered  as  a  sacrifice  for  sin  without  suf- 
fering and  death,  so  if  He  was  often  offered  as  a  sacrifice  for 
sin,  He  must  often  have  been  exposed  to  suffering  and  death. 
Now  the  sufferings  and  agonies  of  Jesus  on  the  cross,  were 
beyond  the  tongue  of  men  and  angels  to  describe ;  they  were 
infinite  as  the  sins  of  man  for  which  He  suffered,  and  the 
justice  of  God  which  He  satisfied.  And  the  words  of  the 
apostle  imply,  that,  if  the  sacrifice  of  the  cross  was  often  of- 
fered, then  all  these  infinite  sufferings  must  have  been  as  often 
inflicted  on  Jesus  Christ.  I  therefore  argued  that  if  the  sac- 
rifice of  the  Mass  be  indeed  a  repetition  or  continuation  of 
the  sacrifice  of  the  Cross,  then  must  Jesus  Christ  be  exposed 
to  all  the  agonies  and  horrors  of  that  death,  every  time  the 
sacrifice  of  the  Mass  is  oftered :  or  in  the  words  of  the  apostle, 
"  then  He  must  often  have  suffered  since  the  foundation  of 
the  world." 

I  anticipated  an  answer  to  this.  The  members  of  the 
Church  of  Rome  feel  the  argument  keenly,  as  it  implies  a  cru- 
elty and  a  wickedness  in  their  priests  and  in  themselves  to  re- 
peat or  continue  the  sufferings  of  Christ ;  and  yet  if  the  sacri- 
fice of  the  Mass  be  a  repetition  or  a  continuation  of  the  sacri- 
fice of  the  Cross,  it  seems  difficult  to  avoid  the  accusation.  I 
felt,  therefore,  that  there  would  be  some  attempt  at  an  answer, 


THE    SACRIFICE    OF   THE    MASS.  299 

and  as  I  was  aware  of  the  answers  usually  attempted,  I  was 
prepared  to  reply. 

The  intelligent  person  v/ho  had  already  spoke  for  the  Church 
of  Rome,  at  once  replied,  that  there  could  be  no  sufferings  in 
the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass,  because  that  it  was  all  mystical — all 
unreal,  for  that  in  the  Mass  Jesus  Christ  was  not  put  to  death 
really,  but  only  mystically — that  the  sacrificial  knife  was  not 
real,  but  only  mystical — that  the  shedding  of  His  blood  was  not 
real  but  only  mystical — that  the  sufferings  were  not  real,  but 
only  mystical.  Now,  he  argued,  the  charge  of  cruelty  and 
wickedness  must  fall  to  the  ground,  as  the  whole  sacrifice  is 
unreal  and  only  mystical.  There  is  neither  cruelty  nor  wick- 
edness ;  and  as  for  the  Holy  Scripture  where  it  is  said,  that  if 
He  be  offered  often,  "  then  He"  must  often  have  suffered,"  it  is 
plain  that  St.  Paul  is  speaking  of  real  offerings,  and  therefore 
of  real  sufferings ;  but  this  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  sacri- 
fice of  the  Mass,  which  is  not  real,  but  only  mystical. 

"  Why,  man  alive  !"  exclaimed  one  of  his  very  zealous  co- 
religionists, "  sure  that  is  as  bad  as  the  doctrine  of  the  Prot- 
estants themselves !" 

The  laugh  created  by  this  naive  exclamation,  led  to  several 
remarks,  more  or  less  irrelevant.  I  quieted  them,  by  reminding 
them  of  the  solemnity  and  importance  of  the  subject,  and  said 
that  the  exclamation  as  to  the  Protestantism  of  this  doctrine, 
had  considerable  truth  in  it.  The  doctrine  of  the  Church  of 
Rome  was,  that  the  Mass  was  "  a  true  and  proper  and  propiti- 
atory sacrifice  for  sins,"  and  the  argument  of  our  Roman  Cath- 
olic friend  was  that  it  was  an  unreal  and  mystical  sacrifice ! 
I  confessed  myself  unable  to  reconcile  the  two  statements 
— that  by  transubstantiation  Jesus  Christ  is  really  and  sub- 
stantially the  victim,  but  that  the  killing  and  dying  and  suffer- 
ing are  only  unreal  and  mystical — that  the  priesthood  who  of- 
fers, is  real  and  true,  and  that  the  offering  and  knife  and  cross, 
are  only  unreal  and  mystical — that  when  we  allude  to  transub- 
stantiation, all  is  declared  to  be  real  and  substantial^  and  when 
we  allude  to  the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass,  all  is  explained  as  un- 
real and  rf'stical!    I  confessed  that  I  could  not  understand 


300  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

the  inconsistency  of  all  this,  and  felt  that  all  must  be  taken  lit- 
erally, and  this  would  imply  a  literal  presence,  a  literal  victim, 
a  literal  death,  and  literal  sufterings,  or  all  should  be  taken  fig- 
uratively, and  then  there  would  be  a  figurative  presence,  a  fig- 
urative victim,  a  figurative  death,  and  figurative  sufferings,  and 
this  would  annihilate  transubstantiation.  The  truth  is,  I  add- 
ed, the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation,  and  the  doctrine  of  the 
Mass  contradict  each  other,  and  they  can  not  be  reconciled. 

Our  friend  replied  again,  that  so  far  from  contradicting  the 
sacrifice  of  the  Mass,  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  was  its 
chief  and  real  foundation.  The  bread  and  the  wine  are  changed 
at  the  mysterious  words  of  the  priest,  into  the  true  and  sub- 
stantial body  and  blood  of  the  blessed  Jesus,  and  this  is  the 
foundation  of  the  Mass ;  but,  he  added,  he  would  not  argue 
that  point  now,  but  would  say,  that  in  the  sacrifice  of  the 
Mass  there  are  no  sufferings,  for  there  is  no  shedding  of  blood ; 
this  is  the  real  point  of  the  argument ;  it  was  argued  that  if 
the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass,  was  the  same  as  the  sacrifice  of  the 
Cross,  then  it  would  be  a  wickedness  and  cruelty  to  be  putting 
the  Blessed  Saviour  to  a  repetition  or  continuation  of  his  suf- 
ferings. "  Now,  I  have  said,"  he  continued,  "  that  the  suffer- 
ings in  the  Mass  are  not  real  sufferings  but  only  mystical,  and 
I  now  say  further,  that  there  can  be  no  real  sufferings  where 
the  blood  is  not  shed ;  and  in  the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass,  there 
is  no  shedding  of  blood.  The  Roman  Catholic  Church  teaches 
that  the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass  is  an  unbloody  sacrifice — that 
the  Saviour  is  there  unbloodihj  offered — that  He  is  sacrificed 
in  an  unbloody  manner.  The  Church  has  taught  this  over 
and  over  again,  in  the  Council  of  Trent,  and  even  in  the  chil- 
dren's catechisms,  and  therefore,  since  the  Mass  is  an  unbloody 
sacrifice  it  follows  that  there  are  no  sufferings. 

I  felt  now  that  the  argument  was  in  precisely  that  state  in 
which  I  could  deal  Avith  the  question  so  as  to  tell  upon  tbe  popu- 
lar mind,  by  giving  that  kind  of  answer  that  at  once  lays  hold  ot 
the  mind  of  the  people  ; — an  answer,  not  subtle  or  refined,  but 
plain,  broad,  strong  and  striking.  I  have  so  often  observed  its 
success  on  other  occasions,  that  I  felt  confident  of  its  effect  now. 


THE    SACRIFICE    OF    THE    MASS.  301 

I  said  that  I  would  make  three  observations  on  what  had 
been  stated  so  well,  so  clearly,  and  so  temperately. 

The  first  observation  was,  that  the  argument  of  our  friend 
had  been  that  the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass  was  the  very  same 
identically  with  the  sacrifice  of  Jesus  Christ  upon  the  Cross ; 
but  now  we  learn,  that  so  fixr  from  being  identically  the  same, 
they  are  widely  different ;  that  on  the  Cross  was  a  bloody  sac- 
rifice, while  that  in  the  Mass  is  an  unbloody  sacrifice  ;  that 
on  the  cross  was  a  suffering  sacrifice,  while  that  in  the  Mass 
is  not  a  sufferino;  sacrifice.  The  sacrifice  on  the  Cross  was  a 
sacrifice  unto  a  real  death,  while  that  in  the  Mass  is  a  sacrifice 
with  only  a  mystical  death.!  Thus  having  commenced  with 
telling  us  that  the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass  was  identically  the 
same  as  the  sacrifice  of  the  Cross,  we  are  now  to  learn  that  so 
far  from  being  identically  the  same,  they  actually  differ  on 
those  particulars  that  more  than  all  else  constitute  the  essence 
of  a  sacrifice — the  shedding  of  blood,  the  endurance  of  suffer- 
ing, and  the  infliction  of  death  !  All  these,  we  know,  were  in 
the  saci'ifice  of  the  Cross,  and  none  of  these,  Ave  are  told,  are  in 
the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass !  And  yet  they  tell  us,  that  they  are 
one  and  the  same — identically  the  same  ! 

The  second  remark  which  should  be  impressed  on  all  is,  that 
if  the  Mass  be  an  unbloody  sacrifice  it  can  not  be  a  propi- 
tiatory or  atoning  sacrifice  for  sin.  Every  one  conversant  with 
the  doctrine  of  sacrifice,  as  revealed  in  the  Scriptures,  is  aware 
that  atonement  and  forgiveness  are  unalterably  connected  with 
the  shedding  of  the  hlood  of  the  sacrificial  victim.  It  would 
occupy  too  much  time  to  open  this  principle  as  fully  as  it  de- 
serves, but  it  is  sufficient  for  our  present  purpose,  to  remark 
that  Moses  lays  it  down  in  the  Old  Testament,  that  "  it  is  the 
blood  that  maketh  atonement  for  the  souV — Lev.  xni.  11:  and 
that  St.  Paul  lays  it  down  in  the  New  Testament,  that  "  with- 
out shedding  of  hlood  there  is  no  remission^ — Heb.  ix.  22. 
The  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures  is,  that  there  can  be  "  no  atone- 
ment," and  that  there  can  be  "  no  remission  of  sins"  unless 
there  be  the  blood  of  sacrifice.  And  yet  the  advocates  of 
Rome  confess  that  the  Mass  is  an  "  unbloody  sacrifice ;"  and 


302  EVKNINGS    WITH   THE   ROMANISTS. 

thus  confess,  that  in  it  there  can  be  no  atonement  or  "  remis- 
sion of  sins  !"  They  had  told  us,  that  the  Mass  was  a  propi- 
tiatory— an  expiatory — an  atoning  sacrifice  ;  and  now,  as  if  all 
this  had  faded  from  their  memory — they  labor  with  untiring 
assiduity  to  persuade  us,  it  is  only  "  an  unbloody  sacrifice." 
And  therefoi'e,  on  their  own  showing,  it  is  a  sacrifice  without 
propitiation,  expiation,  or  atonement. 

But  the  third  and  last  observation  I  would  make  on  the 
statement  that  the  Mass  is  an  unbloody  sacrifice,  is,  that  it  es- 
tablishes a  plain  inconsistency  with  the  doctrine  of  transub- 
stantiation.  It  brings  these  two  doctrines,  the  Mass  and  Ti'an- 
substantiation,  two  chief  and  cardinal  doctrines  of  the  Church 
of  Rome,  into  broad  and  unmistakable  opposition.  Accord- 
ing to  the  doctrine  of  the  Mass,  it  is  an  unbloody  sacrifice.  In 
order  to  escape  the  charge  of  cruelty  and  wickedness  in  con- 
tinuing or  repeating  the  sufferings  of  the  Cross,  they  say,  that 
the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass  is  unbloody.  It  is  so  described  in 
the  Council  of  Trent :  it  is  so  described  in  the  children's 
catechisms,  it  has  been  so  described  by  our  friend  here  this 
evening.  It  is  an  unbloody  sacrifice :  there  is  no  blood.  But 
we  are  also  told  of  trciusubstantiation  that  the  bread  and  wine 
are  transubstantiated  into  the  very,  true,  substantial  body  and 
blood  of  Jesus  Christ ;  and  that  it  is  thus  that  they  have  Him 
as  the  sacrificial  victim,  whole  and  entire,  on  their  altars. 
They  have  no  longer  bread  and  wine.  They  have  only  the 
body  and  the  blood.  If  then  all  is  blood,  and  nothing  but 
blood :  if  all  the  wine  be  turned  into  blood,  and  nothing  re- 
mains but  blood,  how  can  they  say  that  in  the  Mass  there  is 
no  blood — that  it  is  an  unbloody  sacrifice  ?  When  they  are 
defending  transubstantiation,  all  is  bloody  ;  when  they  are  de- 
fending the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass,  all  is  unbloody  ! 

This  acted  like  magic  upon  my  hearers.  They  gave  the 
most  unmistakable  evidence  of  their  feeling ;  and  in  a  mo- 
ment, when  I  paused  to  let  it  have  its  full  efl^ct,  and  to  give 
any  one  an  opportunity  for  reply,  the  whole  number,  both  of 
Protestants  and  Romanists,  were  speaking  in  low  whispers. 
It  was  soon  apparent  that  there  was  a  deep  impression  made 


THE    SACRIFICE    OF    THE    MASS.  803 

ii}->on  all,  and  that  tliere  would  be  no  further  reply.  I  there- 
fore made  some  general  remarks  with  the  view  of  impressing 
as  far  as  I  could,  all  present  with  a  deep  sense  of  the  love  of 
Him  who  left  the  heavens  for  us,  and  bled  and  suffered 
and  died  a  sacrifice  for  our  sins ;  and  of  the  necessity  for 
all  of  us  to  lay  aside  all  other  ground  of  hope — all  self- 
dependence  or  self-righteoussfless — all  dependence  on  rites  or 
ceremonies,  and  to  rest  in  faith  and  hope  and  love  upon  that 
which  would  be  found  in  the  great  day  to  be  the  only  atone- 
ment for  sin. 

ISToTE. — There  are  certain  texts  sometimes  cited  by  Roman  Catholics 
to  justify  their  doctrine,  that  the  mass  is  "  a  true,  proper,  propitiatory, 
and  atoning  sacrifice  for  sin." 

I.  One  of  these  places  is  Acts  xiii.  2,  where  it  is  said  of  some  of 
the  Christian  prophets  and  teachers  [tliere  is  no  mention  of  either 
bishops  or  priests],  that  they  "  ministered  to  the  Lord."  On  this  they 
argue  that  the  word  "  ministered"  in  the  original  means  "  sacrificed,' 
or  "  offered  sacrifice,"  and  that  these  words  imply  that  these  Christians 
offered  the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass.     The  answer  to  this  is — 

That  the  original  word  means  nothing  of  the  kind,  but  simply  any 
public  or  official  service,  whether  civil  or  religious.  Accordingly  it  is 
apphed  in  Rom.  xiii.  6,  to  the  civil  magistrate  collecting  the  taxes  or 
tribute.  Again,  it  is  applied  in  2  Cor.  ix.  12,  to  the  Christian  distrib- 
uting the  money  collected  for  their  poorer  brethren.  Again,  it  is  ap- 
pUed  in  Heb.  i.  14  to  the  angels  sent  to  minister  to  the  heirs  of  sal- 
vation. Again,  in  Rom.  xv.  27,  it  is  applied  to  those  who  were  bound 
in  Christian  fellowship,  "to  minister  in  carnal  things,"  that  is,  in 
money,  to  those  who  had  brought  to  them  the  spiritual  blessings  of  the 
Gospel. 

That  according  to  those  places,  the  word  means  any  public  or  pri- 
vate service ;  and  therefore,  in  the  place  cited,  it  merely  means  that 
the  Christian  prophets  and  teachers  were  assembled  together  in  some 
rehgious  service.  The  place  makes  no  allusion  whatever  to  sacrifice, 
and  certainly  not  to  the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass. 

But  as  they  could  not  find  the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass  already  in  tho 
Holy  Scriptures,  the  translators  of  the  French  Bible,  called  "  the  Bor- 
deaux Bible,"  were  resolved  to  place  it  there ;  and  by  an  outrageous 
falsification,  which  was  nothing  less  than  sacrilege,  they  translated 
this  place,  "  As  they  offered  unto  the  Lord  the  saceipice  op  the  mass, 
and  fasted,"  etc.  They  thus  'nserted  the  words,  "  the  sacrifice  of  the 
Mass,"  so  as  to  deceive  the  people  into  the  belief  that  they  had  the 


304  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

authority  of  Holy  Scripture  for  their  doctrine  !     They  were  afraid  to 
do  this  in  a  Bible-reading  land  like  England. 

II.  They  often  refer  to  Gen.  xiv.  18,  whare  Melchizedek  is  described 
as  meeting  Abraham  and  his  i^eople  returning  from  the  rescue  of  Lot;. 
The  narrative  states  that  Melchizedek  "  brought  forth  bread  and  wine; 
and  he  was  a  priest  of  the  Most  High  God,  and  blessed  Abraham." 
On  these  words  they  argue,  that  Melchizedek,  because  he  was  a  priest, 
brought  forth  bread  and  wine  to  offer  in  sacrifice — just  like  the  sacri- 
fice of  the  Mass.  The  answer  to  this  which  I  have  found  generally 
effective,  is — 

That  Melchizedek  brought  this  bread  and  wine  to  welcome  and  re- 
fresh Abraham  and  his  people,  after  their  night  expedition.  And  that 
Josephus,  the  Jewish  historian,  narrates  the  circumstance  in  that  way. 
And  certainly  there  is  in  the  narrative  nothing  whatever  to  suggest  the 
idea  of  sacrifices.  His  Priesthood  is  mentioned  to  account  for  his 
blessing  Abraham,  and  not  on  account  of  any  sacrifice  of  bread  and 
wine.  But  in  the  Romish  translation  of  the  place,  they  have  most  im- 
properly departed  from  the  original  Hebrew,  and  rendered  the  words 
— '■^  And  he  was  a  Priest,"  by  "for  he  was  a  Priest." 

That  even  supposing  there  was  a  sacrifice  of  bread  and  wine,  and 
that  this  sacrifice  was,  as  the}'-  assert,  a  type  of  the  sacrifice  of  the 
Mass ;  it  would  then  prove,  that  the  mass  was  a  sacrifice  of  merely 
Iread  and  wine.  Transubstantiation  would  be  necessarily  overthrown  ; 
and  the  Mass  prove,  after  all,  no  more  than  mere  Iread  and  wine ! 

III.  They  refer  frequently  to  Mai.  i.  11,  where  in  allusion  to  the 
times  of  the  Messiah — to  Chi-istian  times,  it  is  foretold  that  among  the 
Gentiles  "  incense  shall  be  offered  unto  my  name,  and  a  pure  offering." 
On  this  they  argue  that  it  implies,  that  there  was  to  be  "a  pure  of- 
fering," or  oblation  among  the  Gentiles ;  and  that  this  must  allude  to 
the  offering  of  the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass.     The  answer  to  this  is — 

That  incense  under  the  law  was  a  type  of  prayer ;  and  David  there- 
fore says — "Let  my  prayer  be  set  before  thee  as  incense  ;"  and  that  a 
pure  oflfering  was  the  type  of  the  oflering  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  sal- 
vation of  the  Gentiles  as  well  as  the  Jews.  And  thus  the  prophecy  is 
merely  describing  the  character  of  our  Gentile  times,  that  among  them, 
"  from  the  rising  of  the  sun  to  the  going  down  of  the  same ;" — that  is, 
from  East  to  West  through  the  world,  the  Gentiles  would  yet  be  pre- 
senting their  prayers  to  the  true  God,  and  rest  for  the  true  atonement 
of  their  sins  upon  the  sacrifice  of  Jesus  the  Messiah. 

That  in  strict  fulfillment  of  all  tliis  prediction,  the  nations  that  have 
been  converted  to  Christianity  in  the  East  and  in  the  "West,  are  now, 
in  the  language  of  the  Apostle,  Rom.  xii.  1 — "  presenting  their  bodies 
a  Uving  sacrifice,  holy  and  acceptable  to  God."  There  is  not  hero  a 
word  about  the  Mass. 


THE  SIXTH  CHAPTER  OF  ST.  JOHN. 

A  Conversation  on  our  Lord's  "Words  in  this  Cliapter — Tbe  Eomlsb  Interpretation 
— The  Protestant  Explanation — The  Allusion  to  the  Ascension,  and  the  Argument 
derived  from  it — The  Ancient  Fathers  not  unanimous  on  it,  according  to  the 
Council  of  Tresit — The  Opinions  of  Eusebius,  Tertullian,  Augustine,  Origen,  as  to 
the  Meaning  of  this  Discourse — Augustine's  Explanation  of  the  Allusion  to  the 
Ascension — Evidence  against  the  Literal  Interiiretation — The  Argument  con- 
nected with  the  coming  dovrn  from  Heaven — Difficulties  to  the  Church  of  Eome 
herself,  arising  from  her  own  Interpretation. 

It  is  seldom  tliat  a  female  makes  an  effective  controversial- 
ist. The  eager  and  impulsive  tendency  of  her  natm'e — the 
instinct,  the  passion,  and  the  feeling  that  belongs  to  her,  are 
too  intense  for  the  war  of  argument ;  and  she  is  sure  to  lay 
herself  open  to  the  wary,  watchful,  and  subtle  opponent. 

In  a  considerable  town,  in  the  west  of  Ireland,  resided  a 
female,  whose  controversial  reputation,  in  that  locality,  was  of 
the  first  magnitude.  She  was  the  proprietor  of  the  principal 
establishment  of  a  mercantile  kind  in  the  town,  and  thus  was 
possessed  of  wealth  and  position  which  gave  to  her  a  certain 
amount  of  local  influence  ;  and  this  iu  some  sort  gave  strength 
to  her  controversial  lore.  She  Avas  a  member  of  the  Church 
of  Rome,  a  kind,  charitable,  good  Avoman,  pious  and  religious 
according  to  her  principles,  and  esteemed  and  respected, 
because  she  deserved  it,  in  every  relation  of  life.  Her  one 
failing — and  yet  it  was  that  which  created  her  fame — was  a 
love  of  controversy.  It  was  impossible  to  buy  a  ribbon,  or  to 
purchase  a  cap,  without  her  finding  some  opportunity  of  say- 
ing a  word  for  the  Roman  Church  ;  and  she  could  not  try  on 
a  shawl  or  dispose  of  a  vail  without  giving  some  wound  to  the 
Protestant  religion.     Intolerable  as  this  would  ordinarily  be, 


306  EVENINGS    "WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

yet  persons  learned  to  bear  with  it,  from  sincere  respect  for 
her  general  character.  They  looked  upon  it  as  an  oddity  or 
peculiarity  to  be  pardoned. 

I  had  been  on  a  visit  with  some  friends  in  the  country, 
about  six  or  seven  miles  from  the  town.  And  as  some  of  them 
were  obhged  to  go  there  one  day  to  make  some  2>urchases, 
they  proposed  I  should  accompany  them.  They  told  me 
beforehand  that  this  female  controversialist  knew  me  by  name, 
and  had  expressed  a  wish  to  see  me,  and  that  I  must,  there- 
fore, be  prepared  for  an  attack  on  her  part. 

We  met ;  purchases  were  made,  and,  as  not  unusual,  some 
purchases  were  exchanged  for  others.  By  some  means  or 
other  she  managed  to  make  some  incidental  allusion  to  the 
change  in  transubstantiation.  It  is  impossible  now  to  say 
how  precisely  the  allusion  arose,  but  she  managed  to  drag  in 
the  subject.  Perhaps  the  lady  whom  I  had  accompanied, 
and  at  whose  house  I  was  staying,  was  mischievous,  but  cer- 
tainly she  noticed  the  allusion  with,  as  it  seemed  to  me,  the 
purpose  of  involving  me  ;  at  all  events,  one  thing  led  to  an- 
other, till  our  female  controversialist  expressed  her  fear  that  I 
did  not  believe  in  Transubstantiation. 

I  said  very  gently,  and  kindly,  and  courteously,  that  I  was 
unable  to  beheve  it ; — that  whether  it  was  some  skeptical  ten- 
dencies in  my  mind,  or  some  mental  malformation  that  inca- 
pacitated me  from  receiving  that  dogma ; — that  whether  it 
was  a  defect  in  the  evidence  for  it,  or  a  defect  in  myself  and 
my  prejudices,  it  was  very  certain  I  had  never  been  able  to 
see  it  in  the  same  light  that  it  appeared  to  her. 

She  spoke  in  the  same  spirit,  and  said,  that  every  object  we 
look  at  varies  very  much  according  to  the  light  in  which  we 
view  it,  or  the  point  from  which  we  see  it.  This  silk,  she  said, 
taking  up  a  piece  of  shot  silk,  if  seen  in  one  light  is  a  beautiful 
brown,  and  seen  in  another,  is  a  lovely  lilac. 

This  illustration,  I  said,  seemed  to  imply  that  possibly  we 
might  both  be  right,  and  that  our  difference  was  only  a  dilfer- 
ence  of  position  !  And  then,  I  added  exj)ressively,  there  could 
be  no  reason  for  excluding   either  party  from  the  privileges 


THK    SIXTH    CHAPTER    OF    ST.   JOHN.  SOY 

and  graces — from  the  forgiveness  and  salvation  of  the  Church 
of  God  !  On  this  principle  exclusive  salvation  is  a  folly  and  a 
crime. 

She  saw  at  a  glance  the  point  of  my  VFords,  and  felt  the 
mistake  she  had  made ;  but  said,  with  great  readiness,  that 
her  allusion  applied  to  dift'erent  \aews  of  the  same  truths,  not 
to  a  faithful  reception  and  an  unbelieving  rejection  of  one  ; — 
to  different  views  of,  for  example,  the  real  presence,  not  to  a 
positive  rejection  of  it  altogether.  She  then  said,  gently  and 
suggestively,  that  she  supposed  I  rejected  altogether  the  doc- 
trine of  Transubstantiation. 

I  bowed  assent,  adding,  that  I  could  not  believe  it. 

She  smiled  gently,  and  expressed  surprise  it  should  be  so, 
as  Protestants  so  frequently  spoke  of  dei-iviug  every  thing  from 
the  Holy  Scriptures ;  and  our  Lord  said  expressly — "  Verily, 
verily  I  say  unto  you,  except  ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of 
man,  and  drink  his  blood,  ye  have  no  life  in  you.  Whoso 
eateth  my  flesh  and  drinketh  my  blood,  hath  eternal  life ;  and 
I  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last  day.  For  my  flesh  is  meat  in- 
deed, and  my  blood  is  drink  indeed.  He  that  eateth  my 
flesh,  and  drinketh  my  blood,  dwelleth  in  me,  and  I  in  him." 
— John  vi.  53-56.  There  is  Scripture  at  all  events  to  justify 
our  belief  in  transubstantiation. 

I  replied,  by  reminding  her  that  the  silk  that  seemed  brown 
at  one  moment  appeared  lilac  at  another.  And  that  these 
words  when  taken  alone  and  without  explanation  might  seem 
to  have  one  sense,  but  when  viewed  in  connection  with  our 
Lord's  explanation  immediately  after,  they  appeared  in  a  to- 
tally different  hght.  Now  what  was  our  Lord's  explanation  ? 
His  disciples  evidently  misunderstood  Him,  and  murmured  at 
His  words,  which,  taken  literally,  seemed  harsh  and  unnatural 
and  revolting ;  for  the  idea  of  their  eating  him — the  idea  of 
taking  blood,  which  was  expressly  forbidden  by  their  law — the 
idea  of  their  becoming  cannibals,  was  unnatural  and  revolting 
to  their  feelings.  He  therefore  at  once  corrected  them,  say- 
ing they  should  have  seen  that  his  words  were  spiritual  and 
living  words — "  It  is  the  Spirit  that  quickeneth ;   the  flesh 


308  EVENINGS    WITH   THE   ROMANISTS. 

profitetli  nothing ;  the  words  that  I  speak  unto  you,  they  are 
spirit,  and  they  are  Hfe." — ^Verse  63.  Our  Lord  thus  corrects 
their  error  in  having  understood  Him  in  a  Hteral  or  fleshly 
sense.  He  tells  them  that  such  a  sense  was  unprofitable,  and 
that  His  words  should  be  understood  in  a  spiritual  and  living 
sense,  in  other  words,  in  a  figurative  sense. 

She  listened  to  this  with  a  smile  of  intense  satisfaction — a 
smile  that  betrayed  her  acquaintance  with  it  before,  and  her 
own  feeling  of  pleasure  in  the  opportunity  now  aff"orded  her 
of  answering  it.  She  said,  in  a  tone  of  great  triumph,  with  a 
sort  of  inward  laugh,  that  such  could  not  have  been  the  mean- 
ing of  our  Lord,  for  that  He  shows  He  intended  to  imply  a 
miracle — a  wonderful  miracle — a  miracle  greater  than  even 
His  ascension ;  for  He  adds,  when  the  disciples  murmured — 
"  Doth  this  offend  you  ?  Wliat !  and  if  ye  shall  see  the  Son 
of  man  ascend  up  where  He  was  before?" — Verse  61.  Thus 
implying  that  they  ought  not  to  murmur  at  the  miracle  of 
Transubstantiation — at  their  eating  thereby  His  flesh  and 
blood — inasmuch  as  they  were  soon  destined  to  witness  the 
wonderful  miracle  of  His  ascension  to  Heaven.  When  they 
should  see  a  miracle  like  that,  they  would  no  longer  doubt 
the  miracle  of  Transubstantiation. 

She  seemed  delighted  with  this  argument,  which  certainly 
was  sufficiently  ingenious.  But  the  expression  of  her  face  en- 
tirely changed  when  I  said  as  before,  that  as  the  silk  looked 
brown  in  one  aspect  and  lilac  in  another,  so  there  was  a  to- 
tally different  view  of  this  passage,  namely,  the  view  taken  of 
it  by  all  the  fathers  and  saints  of  the  primitive  Church. 

She  eagerly  interrupted  me,  and  asked  what  it  was. 

I  rephed,  that  I  was  going  to  describe  it ;  and  that  as  her 
Church  professed  such  profound  reverence  for  the  fathers  and 
saints  of  primitive  times,  the  St.  Augustines  and  St.  Athan- 
asiuses,  so  I  was  sure  she  would  bow  to  their  interpretation. 
They  state,. that  when  the  disciples  murmured  at  His  words. 
He  asked  them,  "  Doth  this  oflfend  you  ?"  that  is,  does  this  lan- 
guage lead  you  to  err  and  fall — does  this  language  lead  you 
astray  ?  and  then  he  added,  "  What !  ye  shall  see  the  Son  of 


THE   SIXTH    CHAPTER    OF    ST.    JOHN.  309 

man  ascend  up  where  He  was  before."  When  you  see  Him 
ascend  into  Heaven,  you  may  be  sure  you  can  not  eat  or  drink 
Him  on  earth — you  shall  see  Him  ascend  into  Heaven,  and 
thei'efore  you  can  never  think  of  eating  literally  His  flesh,  or 
drinking  literally  His  blood.  He  will  be  enthroned  in  the 
heaven  of  heavens,  and  how  can  you  so  foolishly  think  that  I 
meant  you  were  to  eat  me  on  earth  ?  And  thus  our  Lord's 
words,  alluding  to  His  ascension,  are  an  argument  of  his  own 
against  the  notion  of  literally  eating  and  drinking  Him  ;  and 
having  thus  argued  against  this,  He  adds,  that  assuredly  they 
ought  to  have  seen  that  His  words  were  not  to  be  understood 
in  a  fleshly  sense,  but  in  a  spiritual  sense,  "  It  is  the  Spirit  that 
quickeneth ;  the  flesh  profiteth  nothing :  the  words  that  I 
speak  unto  you,  they  are  spirit  and  they  are  life."  Now,  I 
added,  that  this  was  the  interpretation  which  the  old  fathers 
and  saints  of  the  primitive  Church  took  of  this  allusion  to  the 
Ascension,  and  that  I  must  confess  my  agreement  with 
them. 

She  listened  to  this  with  great  attention  ;  it  was  evidently 
new  to  her ;  she  was  wholly  unprepared  with  an  answer 
And  my  statement,  that  it  was  the  opinion  of  the  primitive 
Church,  had  its  weight  with  her ;  she  mused  on  it  for  some 
moments,  while  my  friend  and  myself  exchanged  amused 
glances  at  her  perplexity.  She  then  said  very  gently,  that  she 
had  never  heard  that  view  of  the  allusion  to  the  Ascension 
before,  and  that  she  was  not  then  prepared  to  answer  it,  but 
that  she  would  do  so  when  she  saw  me  again,  which  she 
hoped  would  be  very  soon. 

We  parted  for  the  time. 

I  saw  her  again  a  few  days  afterward,  and  I  brought  with 
me  a  small  manuscript-book  in  which  I  had  copied  a  variety 
of  passages  I  had  met  with  in  the  writers  of  the  primitive 
Church.  This  little  volume  was  to  me  a  very  constant  and 
useful  companion  for  many  years,  owing  to  the  strong  feeling 
of  reverence  in  which  any  thing  from  the  fathers  and  saints  of 
the  primitive  times,  is  regarded  among  the  Roman  Catholics. 
As  soon  as  I  saw  my  fair  antagonist,  I  reminded  her  of  my  ar- 


310  EVENINGS    WITH   THE    ROMANISTS. 

gument  in  our  preceding  conversation — that  I  had  argued  that 
the  words  of  our  Lord,  as  to  eating  his  flesh  and  drinking  his 
blood,  were  to  be  interpreted  figuratively,  and  also  that  his  al- 
lusion to  the  ascension  into  heaven,  was  designed  by  him  as  an 
argument  against  the  literal  interpretation,  a  divine  argument 
of  OUT  Lord  himself  against  the  doctrine  of  Transuhstantiation. 

She  replied  that  she  had  a  perfect  recollection  of  what  had 
passed,  and  she  added,  with  a  very  arch  and  skeptical  expres- 
sion, that  she  recollected  how  I  had  said  that  the  fathers  and 
saints  of  the  primitive  Church  agreed  with  me. 

I  said  she  was  perfectly  correct,  and  that  I  had  brought  with 
me  for  her,  the  opinions  to  winch  I  referred.  I  then  read 
from  Eusehius. 

"  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  whoso  eateth  my  flesh  and 
drinketh  my  blood,  abideth  in  me  and  I  in  hiju.  TNTien  He 
was  mystically  saying  these  and  similar  things,  some  of  his 
disciples  said  to  him,  '  This  is  a  hard  saying,  who  can  hear  it  ?' 
And  in  reply  to  them,  our  Saviour  says,  '  Doth  this  offend 
you  ?  What,  and  if  you  shall  see  the  Son  of  Man  ascend  up 
where  he  was  before.  It  is  the  Spirit  that  quickeneth,  the 
flesh  profiteth  nothing,  the  word  that  I  speak  unto  you,  they 
are  spirit  and  they  are  life.'  By  these  words  he  designed  to 
teach  them  that  what  they  had  heard  of  his  flesh  and  blood 
was  to  be  understood  in  a  spiritual  sense,  as  if  he  had  said,  Do 
not  think  that  I  am  speaking  of  the  flesh  with  which  I  am 
surrounded,  as  if  you  ought  to  eat  that,  nor  imagine  that  you 
are  to  drink  of  my  sensible  and  corporal  blood,  but  you  must 
cleai'ly  understand  that  the  words  which  I  speak  unto  you  are 
spirit  and  life  ;  so  that  his  words  and  discourses  are  flesh  and 
blood,  and  if  a  man  eat  of  them,  as  feeding  on  celestial  food, 
he  shall  be  a  partaker  of  life  eternal.  Therefore,  says  He,  let 
not  this  offend  you,  which  I  have  said  about  eating  my  flesh 
and  drinking  my  blood,  nor  be  troubled  at  the  superficial  bear- 
ing of  what  I  said  of  meat  and  drink ;  for  these,  if  under- 
stood carnally,  will  be  unprofitable,  for  it  is  the  Spirit  that 
quickeneth  those  who  understand  them  spiritually.^''  B.  3.  Eccl. 
Theol. 


THE    SIXTH    CHAPTER    OF    ST.    JOHN.  311 

I  remarked  simply,  that  there  was  no  mistaking  the  mean- 
ing of  this  father,  and  I  then  read  from  TertulUan. 

"  They  thought  his  discourses  were  harsh  and  intolerable, 
as  if  he  had  determined  .that  they  were  truly  to  eat  his  flesh  ; 
he  premises,  in  order  to  describe  the  state  of  salvation  in  the 
spirit :  '  it  is  the  Spirit  that  quickeneth,'  and  then  he  adds, 
'  the  flesh  profiteth  nothing,'  that  is,  for  quickening,  '  the  words 
which  I  speak  unto  you,  they  are  spirit  and  they  are  life,'  as 
he  had  already  said — '  Whoso  heareth  my  words  and  believ- 
eth  on  Him  that  sent  me,  hath  everlasting  life,  and  shall  not 
come  into  condemnation,  but  is  passed  from  death  unto  Hfe,' 
thereby  declaring  his  discourses  to  be  that  which  quickeneth, 
for  his  discourses  are  spirit  and  life.  He  declares  the  same 
discourse  to  be  also  his  flesh,  for  his  discourse  was  made  his 
flesh,  and  for  that  reason  it  is  to  be  sought  and  eaten  by  hear- 
ing, and  chewed  by  the  understanding,  and  digested  by  faith  ; 
for  a  little  before,  he  had  pronounced  his  flesh  to  be  heavenly 
meat,  urging  still  under  the  figures  of  necessary  food,  the  re- 
membrance of  their  fathers."     De  Resur. 

I  only  observed  to  her  on  this  that  it  showed  how  those 
writers  interpreted  this  subject  figuratively.  I  then  read  from 
Athanasius* 

"  When  our  Lord  spake  of  the  eating  of  his  body,  and  when 
he  saw  that  many  were  offended,  he  forthwith  added,  '  Does 
this  offend  you  ?  What,  and  if  ye  shall  see  the  Son  of  man 
ascend  up  where  he  was  before.  It  is  the  spirit  that  quick- 
eneth, the  flesh  profiteth  nothing,  the  words  that  I  speak  unto 
you,  they  are  spirit  and  they  are  life.'  Both  these  things,  the 
flesh  and  the  spirit,  he  said  respecting  himself;  and  he  dis- 
tinguishes the  spirit  from  the  flesh,  in  order  to  teach  men  that 
his  words  zvere  not  carnal  but  spiritual ;  for  to  how  many 
persons,  think  you,  could  his  body  have  been  literally  food, 
so  as  to  be  food  for  the  whole  world  ?  In  order  to  turn  away 
their  minds  from  carnal  thoughts,  and  that  theij  might  learn 

«> 
*  The  originals  of  this  place  from  Athanasius,  as  aIf?o  of  the  other 
fathers  here  cited,  will  be  found  in  Usher's  reply  to  Malone. 


312  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

that  the  flesh  that  he  would  give  them  was  heavenly  and  spi- 
ritual food,  he  on  this  account  mentioned  the  ascent  of  the 
Son  of  man  to  heaven." 

Such  was  the  interpretation  of  this  celebrated  saint,  and  I 
then  read  as  follows,  from  Augustine  : 

"  Christ  taught  his  disciples  and  said  to  them  :  '  It  is  the 
spirit  that  quickeneth,  the  flesh  profiteth  nothing.  The  words 
which  I  spake  unto  you,  they  are  spirit  and  they  are  life,'  as 
if  He  had  said — understand  spiritually  what  I  have  spoken. 
You  are  not  about  to  eat  this  identical  body  which  you  see, 
nor  to  drink  this  identical  blood,  which  they  who  crucify  me 
will  pour  out.  On  the  contrary,  I  have  commanded  a  certain 
sacrament  unto  you,  which  shall  vivify  you  if  spiritually  un- 
derstood ;  for  though  it  must  be  celebrated  visibly,  yet  it  must 
be  understood  invisibly."     In  Psa.  98. 

This  was  suflacient  as  to  the  opinion  of  this  greatest  of  all 
the  fathers.     I  then  read  from  Origen. 

"You  must  know  that  they  are  figures,  which  are  ■mitten 
in  the  sacred  volume,  and  therefore  as  spiritual  and  not  as 
carnal  persons,  examine  and  understand  what  is  said ;  for  if 
you  understand  them  carnally  they  will  be  injurious  to  you, 
and  will  not  nourish  you.  There  is  a  letter  that  killeth  him 
who  does  not  interpret  in  a  spiritual  sense  lohat  is  said,  for  if 
you  follow  according  to  the  letter  this  saying,  '  Unless  ye  eat 
my  flesh  and  drink  my  blood,'  it  is  a  letter  that  killeth.'''' — In 
Levit.  hom.  Y. 

Having  read  these  several  extracts,  I  remarked  that  they 
showed  very  clearly  that  these  fathers  and  saints  of  the  primi- 
tive Church  adopted  the  figurative  and  not  the  literal  inter- 
pretation of  this  discourse  of  our  Lord  ;  that  they  adopted  the 
interpretation  which  Protestants  give,  and  rejected  that  which 
Romanists  give,  to  this  remarkable  chapter. 

She  merely  said,  in  reply  to  this,  that  she  believed  that  in 
the  writings  of  these  very  fathers  and  saints  there  were  pass- 
ages which  gave  the  opposite  interpretation,  agreeing  alto- 
gether with  the  Church  of  Rome ;  that  she  had  seen  such 
passages  often  quoted  in  books  ;  but  that,  of  course,  she  could 


THE    SIXTH    CHAPTER    OF    ST.   JOHN.  813 

not  be  expected  to  be  able  to  argue  on  that  point.  She  was 
sure,  however,  that  her  priest  could  easily  satisfy  me  :«  the 
subject. 

I  replied  that  I  certainly  could  not  expect  her  to  be  familiar 
with  writers  whose  works  were  all  either  Greek  or  Latin ;  but 
that,  if  these  writers  wrote  those  passages  which  I  had  cited, 
and  also  wrote  those  passages  directly  opposite,  to  which  she 
alluded,  it  only  proved  that  they  were  very  inconsistent  men  ; 
— that  these  fathers  and  saints,  as  they  were  called,  were  very 
inconsistent  Christians  thus  to  write  on  both  sides  ;  and  there- 
fore were  scarcely  fit  persons  to  govern  us  in  our  interpreta- 
tion of  the  Scriptures.  I  added  pleasantly,  that  her  creed 
contained  a  clause  that  she  would  "  never  interpret  Scripture 
otherwise  than  according  to  the  unanimous  interpretations  of 
the  ancient  fathers ;"  and  that  the  Council  of  Trent  had  ex- 
pressly acknowledged  that,  as  to  the  purport  of  this  sixth 
chapter  of  St.  John,  the  ancient  fathers  are  not  unanimous  ! 

She  took  this  in  very  good  part,  smiling  pleasantly  at  it ;  so 
I  felt  that  I  could  go  a  step  further.  I  reminded  her  that  in 
our  former  conversation  she  had  argued  that  our  Lord's  allu- 
sion to  His  ascension  was  in  order  to  remove  the  doubts  of 
His  hearers — that  when  they  should  witness  the  wonder  of 
His  ascension  they  need  no  longer  doubt  the  wonder  of  tran- 
substantiation.  She  assented  to  this ;  and  I  then  reminded 
her  that  I  had  argued  on  the  other  hand,  that  He  had  alluded 
to  his  ascension  in  order  to  show  them  that  they  ought  not 
to  understand  his  words  in  a  literal  sense  ;  for  that  when  He 
would  ascend  to  heaven  and  sit  enthroned  there,  and  be  their 
Priest  and  Advocate  and  Mediator,  then  they  could  not  have 
Him  bodily  on  earth,  to  be  literally  and  substantially  eating 
his  body  and  drinking  his  blood.  This,  I  said,  was  my  argu- 
ment and  explanation  of  this  allusion.  And  now  I  added  that 
Saint  Augustine  was  my  authority  for  this  argument.  He 
says : 

"  Our  Lord  answers — '  Doth  this  offend  you  V  I  said  I 
would  give  you  my  Flesh  to  eat,  and  my  Blood  to  drink  ;  does 
it  ofiend  you  ?     '  What  and  if  you  shall  seo  the  Son  of  Man 

14 


3I'4 


EVENINGS    WITH   THE    ROMANISTS. 


ascend  up  wliere  He  was  before  V  What  is  the  meaning  of 
this  ?  By  this  He  explains  what  they  knew  not,  and  lays  open 
the  reason  of  their  being  offended  ;  for  they  imagined  that 
He  would  give  to  them  His  body :  and  therefore  He  said  He 
would  ascend  to  heaven  entire.  When  you  shall  see  the  Son 
of  Man  ascend  into  heaven,  then  you  will  see  certainly  that 
He  (lives  not  his  body  in  the  way  you  imagine.  '  It  is  the 
spirit  that  quickeneth,  the  flesh  profiteth  nothing.  The  words 
that  I  spake  unto  you,  they  are  spirit,  and  they  are  life.' 
What  is  the  meaning  of  this,  '  they  are  spirit  and  they  are 
life  V  That  they  are  to  be  understood  spiritually.  Dost  thou 
understand  them  spiritually,  then  they  are  spirit  and  life.  Dost 
thou  understand  them  carnally,  then,  though  they  are  spirit 
and  life,  yet  they  are  not  so  to  thee,"  in  Joh.  Tract  27. 
Again,  St.  Augustine  says  : 

"  Some  of  his  disciples,  yet  not  all,  but  very  many,  were 
ofiended,  saying  one  to  another,  '  This  is  a  hard  saying  ;  who 
can  hear  it  V  Now,  when  our  Lord  perceived  this,  and  heard 
their  murmurings  and  thoughts.  He  answers  them,  in  order 
that  they  might  understand  that  He  had  heard  them,  and 
that  they  might  cease  from  such  thoughts ;  but  what  Avas  his 
answer  ?  '  Doth  this  offend  you  ?  what  and  if  ye  shall  see 
the  Son  of  Man  ascend  up  where  He  was  before  ?'  Now, 
what  does  He  mean  by  these  words — '  Doth  this  offend  you  ?' 
Do  you  imagine  that  I  shall  make  parts  of  this  my  body  which 
you  see,  and  that  I  shall  take  my  members  to  pieces,  to  give 
them  to  you  ?  *  What,  and  if  ye  shaU  see  the  Son  of  Man 
ascend  up  where  He  was  before  V  It  is  ce7-tain,  that  He  who 
has  ascended  whole,  can  not  be  eaten^ — De  Verb.  Apos. 
Sermo  2. 

On  reading  these,  which  certainly  surprised  my  antagonist, 
I  said,  that  there  could  be  no  doubt  as  to  the  meaning  of  this 
celebrated  father  and  saint ;  he  explained  the  allusion  to  the 
ascension,  as  I  had  done,  and  thus  this  argument  against  tran- 
substantiation  is  an  argument  invented  by  our  Lord  himself 
and  urged  by  him  against  transubsfantiation.  It  is  not  an 
inference  drawn  from  his  words,  but  is  an  argument  divinely 


THE    SIXTH    CHAPTER    OF    ST.   JOHN.  815 

formed^  and  divinehj  urged  by  our  Lord  himself ;  and  it  sim- 
ply is,  that  instead  of  interpreting;  his  words  of  eating  his  flesh, 
and  drinking  his  blood  in  a  literal  sense,  they  should  see  that 
the  thing  was  an  impossibility,  for  as  He  was  to  ascend  hodily 
to  heaven,  so  they  could  not  have  him  to  eat  bodily  upon 
earthj^ 

I  must  do  my  fair  opponent  the  justice  to  say,  that  she 
bore  all  this  with  great  patience,  she  listened  with  the  closest 
attention — showed  she  fully  saw  and  comprehended  my  mean- 
ing— ^made  some  just  and  natural  comments,  but  made  no 
effort  to  weaken  the  force  of  my  argument.  She  was  •  evi- 
dently unprepared  for  such  a  mass  of  evidence,  and  very 
frankly  acknowledged  her  inability  to  answer  it,  further  than 
by  saying  that  there  were  other  reasons  operating  on  her 
mind,  which  forced  her  to  an  opposite  interpretation  of  our 
Lord's  discourse ;  she  said  that  she  had  read  much,  and  argued 
much  on  it,  and  her  opinion  was  fully  formed,  and  could  not 
be  easily  changed,  and  certainly  not  by  any  thing  I  had  of- 
fered, though  she  admitted  it  was  very  new  and  very  interest- 
ing ;  but,  she  added  gently  and  feelingly,  that  she  often  felt 
that  she  was  right,  when  she  could  not  prove  it. 

The  earnestness,  simplicity,  and  sincerity  of  her  manner, 
in  saying  this,  could  not  be  lost  upon  me  :  I  fully  appreciated 
it,  and  in  a  very  few  minutes  we  were  established  mutually  in 
each  other's  confidence ;  difi'ering  widely  as  the  poles  in  our 
views,  we  yet  felt  that  we  could  speak  fully  and  frankly  to  each 
other,  and  I  resolved  to  avail  myself  of  it ;  so  after  a  short 
conversation  on  the  importance  of  true  religiousness,  and  of 
nobly  and  faithfully  living  on  Christ,  and  living  for  Christ,  I 
took  occasion  to  revert  to  our  original  subject,  and  said  that  I 
apprehended  she  had  not  considered  the  discourse  of  our  Lord 
as  a  whole,  and  had  perhaps  only  seen  the  use  that  had  beeu 


*  It  will  be  seen  that  this  argument  is  a  full  justification  of  the 
note  or  rubric  appended  to  the  end  of  the  Communion  Service  in  the 
Common  Prayer.  Christ's  human  body  being  literally  in  heaven,  can 
not  be  literally  on  earth.    By  his  Spirit  he  is  every  where. 


816  EVENINGS    WITH   THE    ROMANISTS. 

made  of  the  particular  place  she  had  quoted,  about  eating  the 
flesh  and  drinkino-  the  blood. 

She  said  at  once  that  she  was  intimately  acquainted  with 
the  whole  chapter,  but  habitually  took  a  totally  different  view 
of  it  from  me. 

I  asked  her  whether  she  believed  the  flesh  and  blood  of 
His  body,  which  were  supposed  to  be  eaten  and  drank,  were 
the  body  that  was  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary.  I  added  that  I 
took  for  granted  that  she  did  so  believe,  because  the  catechism 
of  the  Council  of  Trent  said  it  was  "  the  real  body  of  Christ, 
the  same  that  was  born  of  the  Virgin^  and  sits  at  the  right 
hand  of  the  Father  in  heaven,  is  contained  in  the  sacrament." 
chap.  iv.  ques.  26. 

She  answered,  that  of  course  she  believed  this,  because  he 
had  no  other  but  that  which  was  the  substance  of  his  mother, 
born  in  the  world.  His  divine  nature.  His  Godhead  was  from 
heaven  ;  but  His  human  nature,  His  manhood  was  from  earth  ; 
His  flesh  and  blood  which  belonged  to  His  manhood,  to  His 
human  body,  was  of  course  born  of  the  blessed  Virgin.  Why, 
she  asked,  inquiringly,  should  you  ask  such  a  question  ? 

I  could  not  but  enjoy  her  simplicity,  and  if  we  were  not 
established  in  mutual  confidence,  I  could  hardly  have  had  it  in 
my  heart  to  go  on  with  my  argument ;  but  I  felt  she  would 
receive  it  kindly  from  me.  I  said,  that  her  answer,  so  clear 
and  decisive  to  my  simple  question,  cut  up  her  interpretation 
of  this  discourse  in  the  sixth  chapter  of  St.  John  by  the  very 
roots,  for  our  Lord  is  speaking  throughout  it,  not  of  that  which 
He  received  from  the  Virgin  Mary — not  of  that  which  came 
from  earth  or  belonged  to  earth,  but  only  of  that  which  came 
down  from  heaven.  He  says,  "  My  Father  giveth  you  the 
true  bread  from  heaven,  for  the  bread  of  God  is  He  which 
Cometh  down  from  heaven,^''  verse  33.  This  could  not  be  the 
body,  of  flesh  and  blood  He  received  from  the  Virgin  Mary. 
Again  He  says,  "  /  came  doivn  from  heaven,  not  to  do  mine 
own  will,  but  the  will  of  Him  that  sent  me,"  verse  38.  This 
was  not  His  human  flesh  and  blood,  which  came  from  earth. 
Again,  "  the  Jews  murmured  at  Him,  because  He  said,  I  am  the 


THE    SIXTH    CHAPTER    OP    ST.   JOHN.  31 7 

bread  which  came  down  from  heaven^  And  they  said — how 
is  it  then  He  saith,  '■'■  I caine  down  from  heaven?''''  verse  41. 
Again  He  said  himself,  "  This  is  the  bread  that  cometh  down 
from  heaven^  that  a  man  may  eat  thereof  and  not  die.  I  am 
the  living  bread  which  came  down  from  heaven^''  verse  50. 
He  is  thus  speaking  throughout  this  whole  discourse,  not  of 
the  body  of  manhood,  the  flesh  and  blood  which  He  received 
from  the  human  nature  of  His  mother,  and  which  was  from 
earth  ;  but  of  that  which  came  down  from  heaven,  and  which 
therefore  could  not  be  His  literal  flesh  and  blood  ;  and  that  this 
w^as  His  meaning,  when  He  spoke  of  eating  His  flesh  and  drink- 
ing His  blood,  is  placed  beyond  doubt,  by  His  saying  in  the 
very  next  verse,  "  this  is  that  bread  which  came  down  from 
heaven^''  v.  58.  Throughout  the  whole  discourse.  He  is  speak- 
ing of  his  divine  love,  manifested  in  His  coming  down  from 
heaven  for  our  salvation.  It  was  His  divine  nature,  coming 
down  from  heaven,  and  taking  our  nature  for  us.  It  was  our 
faith  in  this^-our  feeding  on  this — our  living  on  this  as  on 
flesh  and  blood,  that  is  the  very  life  of  the  soul :  "  I  am,"  said 
He,  "  the  Bread  of  Life,  he  that  cometh  to  me  shall  never 
hunger,  and  he  that  believeth  on  me,  shall  never  thirst,"  verse 
35.  The  promise  of  never  hungering  and  never  thirsting  is 
made  to  those  who  beUeve  in  Him  and  oome  to  him.  And 
this  is  just  the  promise  to  those  who  eat  His  flesh  and  drink 
His  blood  ;  showing  that  these  simply  mean  feeding  on  Him, 
and  living  on  Him  by  faith.  The  only  difficulty  in  the  whole 
discourse,  arises  from  not  considering  the  figure  which  led  to 
it.  Our  Lord  charged  the  Jews  with  following  Him,  that  they 
might  again  be  fed  by  a  miracle  of  loaves  and  of  fishes  as  be- 
fore :  "  Verily,  verily  I  say  unto  you,  ye  seek  me,  not  because 
ye  saw  the  miracles,  but  because  ye  did  eat  of  the  loaves  and 
were  filled,  labor  not  for  the  meat  that  perisheth,  but  for  that 
meat  which  endureth  unto  everlasting  life,  which  the  Son  of 
Man  shall  give  unto  you,"  verse  26.  This  verse  commenced  the 
discourse,  it  forms  the  key-note  which  explains  the  whole,  as 
showing  the  scope  and  reason  of  His  using  the  figure  of  eating 


318  EVENINGS    WITH   THE    ROMANISTS. 

and  drinkiDg  when  He  meant  coming  to  Him  and  believing  on 
Him. 

She  made  no  remark  upon  all  this ;  she  only  smiled  and 
shook  her  head  incredulously ;  she  evidently  had  no  answer 
for  it.  Very  little  more  of  importance  was  said,  and  we 
parted. 

On  my  return  to  the  house,  where  I  was  staying,  I  found 
that  a  young  man  of  some  property  and  influence  in  the 
neighborhood  was  to  join  us  at  dinner.  He  was  a  Eoman 
Catholic,  who  was  very  much  disposed  to  leave  the  Church  of 
Rome,  and  with  whom  I  had  already  had  several  conversations 
on  the  subject. 

In  the  evening,  I  related  to  him  and  my  fi-iends  the  purport 
of  my  conversation  with  my  fair  opponent ;  he  was  a  good 
deal  amused  as  well  as  interested,  and  as  one  thing  led  to 
another,  I  said  there  were  other  particulars  in  this  discourse, 
that  bore  heavily  against  the  interpretation  of  the  Church  of 
Rome. 

The  first  was  derived  from  the  words  on  which  she  dwells 
so  much,  "Except  ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  Man,  and 
drink  His  blood,  ye  have  no  life  in  you :  whoso  eateth  my 
flesh  and  drinketh  my  blood,  hath  eternal  life,  and  I  will  raise 
him  up  at  the  last  day."  It  is  plain,  that  if  we  are  to  inter- 
pret these  words  strictly  and  literally,  then  the  drinking  His 
blood  is  as  necessary  as  the  eating  His  flesh;  the  receiving  the 
cup  is  as  necessary  as  receiving  the  host  in  the  sacrament. 
This  touches  the  practice  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  which  gives 
the  consecrated  bread  to  the  commimicant,  but  refuses  the 
cup  ! '  Now,  this  language  of  our  Lord  implies  that  the  prom- 
ise of  eternal  life  is  only  for  those  who  drink  the  blood  as 
well  as  eat  the  bread,  and  that  there  can  be  no  eternal  life 
for  any  who  take  the  bread  without  also  taking  the  cup.  If 
then  this  language  is  to  be  applied  to  the  sacrament  at  all, 
then  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  by  withholding  the  cup,  they 
deprive  the  people  of  all  the  blessings  promised  to  the  com- 
municant. 

The  second   consideration  is,  that  if  we  are   to  take  this 


THE    SIXTH    CHAPTER    OF    ST.   JOHN.  319 

discourse  strictly  and  literally,  it  will  prove  the  very  converse 
of  Transubstantiation ;  thus — if  in  the  words,  "  this  is  my 
body,"  and  "  this  is  my  blood,"  the  substantive  verb  "  ^s,"  is  to 
be  interjDreted  as  implying  a  change  of  the  "  this"  into  the 
"  body"  and  into  the  "  blood,"  then  we  have  a  parallel  place 
in  this  discourse,  where  our  Lord  says  "  I  am  the  bread"  and 
the  substantive  verb  "  am"  must  imply  a  similar  change  ;  and 
thus,  if  the  words  "  this  is  my  body,"  imply  that  the  bread  is 
changed  into  the  body  of  Christ,  then  the  words,  "  I  am  the 
bread"  must  imply  that  Christ  is  changed  into  bread  !  And 
thus  if  one  place  proves  Transubstantiation,  the  other  will 
prove  the  converse  of  it — one  proving  that  bread  can  be 
changed  into  Christ,  and  the  other  proving  that  Christ  can  be 
changed  into  bread ! 

There  is  another  consideration  that  has  great  weight  with 
many  minds ;  it  is  this ;  if  we  apply  this  discourse  of  eating 
the  flesh,  and  drinking  the  blood  to  the  sacrament  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  we  must  pronounce  that  it  is  necessary — abso- 
lutely necessary  to  salvation,  so  necessary,  as  that  no  man  can 
be  saved  without  it,  for  it  is  said,  "  Except  ye  eat — ye  have 
no  life  in  you."  And  again,  it  involves  the  equally  objection- 
able position  that  whoever  receives  the  sacrament,  is  certainly 
saved,  for  it  is  said,  "  He  that  eateth — hath  everlasting  life, 
and  I  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last  day."  And  thus  no  one 
can  be  saved  without  it,  and  no  one  with  it  can  be  lost ! 
These  strange  results  flow  from  interpreting  these  words  as 
referring  to  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  Their  true 
intention  is  to  teach  us  that  we  are  to  believe  on  Him  whose  '• 
love  for  poor  sinners  brought  Him  down  from  heaven — whose  1 
love  led  Him  to  become  incarnate — whose  love  led  him  to  die  ' 
for  us ;  and  that  the  hfe  of  our  souls  is  our  living  and  feeding 
by  faith  on  these  blessed  truths.  This  is  the  true  receiving 
Christ,  and  feeding  on  Christ. 

I  can  feel  for  the  members  of  the  Church  of  Rome  who 
cling  to  this  discourse  of  our  Lord ;  not  that  it  in  anywise 
gives  them  the  least  ground  for  their  favorite  dogma :  but 
they  are  so  habituated  to  look  on  it  as  the  great  support  of 


320  EVENINGS    WITH   THE    ROMANISTS. 

the  system,  that  the  least  doubt  of  its  applicability  is  like  an 
earthquake  shaking  the  foundations  on  which  they  stand  ;  and 
yet  a  mind  calm  and  unprejudiced,  that  will  examine  it  with- 
out passion  or  party,  will  be  led  irresistibly  to  the  conclusion 
that  the  subject-matter  of  our  Lord's  discourse  is  very  different 
indeed  from  the  institution  of  a  sacrament. 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 

A  yonng  Convert— The  Words,  "This  is  my  Body,  Blood"— Whether  Literal  or 
Figurative— Examples  to  illustrate  this— Whether  our  Lord  gave  a  new  and 
miraculous  Power  to  the  Priesthood— Various  Meauings  imposed  on  these  Words 
by  Eomish  Writers— Subsequent  History  of  the  young  Convert. 

About  ten  or  twelve  years  before  I  came  to  reside  at ,  a 

Roman  Catholic  family  had  emigrated  to  America.  They 
constituted  a  large  party.  They  were  the  relics  of  an  old 
family,  once  possessed  of  considerable  influence  and  extensive 
property.  Indeed  their  territorial  rights  were  at  one  time  very 
extensive.  But  that  common  bane  of  Ireland,  waste  and  ex- 
travagance, and  dissipation  and  inattention  to  the  commonest 
maxims  of  prudence,  necessitated  the  gradual  sale  of  one  estate 
after  another,  till  each  generation  became  poorer  than  the 
preceding.  At  last  the  representative  of  the  family,  being  a 
man  of  considerable  energy  and  good  sense,  and  having  many 
children,  resolved  to  emigrate  to  the  back  woods  of  the  Far 
West.  He  took  all  his  family  with  him  except  one  little  girl, 
some  five  or  six  years  of  age.  And  she  was  left  with  an  aunt, 
who  was  possessed  of  some  little  wreck  of  former  fortune,  and 
who  was  attached  to  the  little  niece,  and  promised  to  provide 
for  her. 

The  aunt  Avas,  like  her  ancestors,  a  member  of  the  Church 
of  Rome,  by  inheritance  as  well  as  by  conviction.  And  she 
brought  up  her  little  charge,  truly,  religiously,  affectionately, 
to  the  best  of  her  judgment.  When  I  commenced  my  duties 
in  the  parish,  the  niece  might  have  been  some  fifteen  or  six- 
teen years  of  age.  And  it  was  not  till  a  year  or  two  after- 
ward, that  I  observed  her  in  my  school-room  on  one  or  two 

14* 


322  EVENINGS    WITH   THE    ROMANISTS. 

occasions  of  my  evening  lectures.  Shortly  afterward  I  learned 
that  she  had  been  induced  by  one  of  her  young  companions 
to  read  the  Scrip"tures — that  she  had  been  very  strongly 
affected  in  readiuo-  them — that  she  had  asked  to  be  allowed  to 
accompany  a  young  Protestant  companion  to  my  lectures — 
that  she  had  attended  several  of  them — and  finally,  that  she 
was  in  every  thing  but  name,  a  Protestant. 

She  Avas  a  person  of  very  prepossessing  appearance,  gentle, 
timid,  and  retiring,  but  a  universal  favorite  among  her  equals 
in  age  and  station,  that  is,  among  the  class  of  inferior  shop- 
keepers in  a  country  town.  The  recognized  and  traditionary 
antiquity  of  her  descent  gave  her  a  sort  of  claim  to  respect, 
never  denied  among  the  peasantry. 

The  history  of  this  young  and  interesting  person,  like  the 
history  of  her  unfortunate  family,  is  the  tale  of  too  many  in 
the  sister  island.  I  shall  narrate  all  that  is  necessary  to  my 
present  purpose. 

I  had  never  spoken  to  her  ;  but  having  learned  the  state  of 
her  mind  and  feelings,  I  gave  my  advice  to  others  who  had 
access  to  her,  and  ample  opportunities  of  speaking  with  her. 
They  carefully  attended  to  my  advice,  and  one  evening  as  I 
visited  one  of  my  sick  people,  with  a  view  to  reading  the 
Scriptures  and  praying  with  her,  I  observed  her  enter  and  seat 
herself  with  others  to  listen.  As  this  is  a  very  frequent  cus- 
tom among  the  peasantry,  even  among  the  Roman  Catholics, 
there  was  nothing  very  remarkable  in  it,  so  after  some  con- 
versation, as  was  my  usual  way  with  the  sick,  I  read  a  chapter 
and  proceeded  to  comment  on  it,  as  in  a  cottage  lecture. 

Our  subject  led  me  to  speak  of  the  love  of  the  Saviour — a 
love  shown  in  leaving  the  heavens — in  walking  our  fallen 
world — dwelling  among  fallen  men,  as  partaking  himself  of 
our  fallen  manhood — suffering,  bleeding,  and  dying  for  us — 
and  now  as  our  High  Piiest  in  the  heavens,  interceding  for  us. 
I  was  led  to  remark  on  His  leaving  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  a 
perpetual  record  of  His  love — on  His  sending  His  Spirit  to 
make  us  fit  for  the  enjoyment  of  His  promises — and  on  His 
instituting  the  Lord's  Supper  as  a  memorial  of  his  dying  love. 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION.  323 

I  dwelt  on  this  last  as  designed  by  Him  as  a  memorial  feast 
or  occasion  in  which  His  loving  and  beheving  people  might 
often  meet  together,  and  pray  together,  and  speak  together  of 
His  wonderful  love.  There,  I  said,  we  can  sit  and  kneel  to- 
gether, and  we  can  eat  of  the  bread  in  remembrance  of  His 
having  given  His  body  to  be  broken  unto  death  upon  the 
cross,  as  a  substitute,  as  a  vicarious  offering  for  us,  and  we  can 
drink  the  wine,  in  memory  of  His  having  shed  His  blood  unto 
death  at  Calvary  to  make  atonement  for  us.  It  was  thus  a 
dying  legacy,  in  the  enjoyment  of  which  we  show  to  each 
other  our  belief  that  our  forgiveness,  justification,  salvation  are 
derived  to  us,  through  the  Cross  of  Calvary.  I  was  en- 
deavoring to  press  on  my  hearers  that  the  graces  and  blessings 
for  the  communicants  were  not  through  the  mere  elements  or 
material  thino^s  themselves,  but  altosrether  throuarh  the  faith 
developed  in  the  tone,  spirit,  and  prayerfulness  of  their  souls 
when  thus  engaged. 

While  thus  expressing  myself  and  drawing  to  a  conclusion 
without  the  least  allusion  to  any  thing  of  a  controversial  na- 
ture, I  was  asked  by  an  elderly  man  who  sat  beside  me,  to 
explain  the  words  "  This  is  my  body,"  and  "  This  is  my  blood  ;" 
he  added,  that  Roman  Catholics  understood  these  words  strictly 
and  literally,  and  thought  that  all  the  graces  and  blessings  of 
the  Sacrament  were  derived  to  us  throuo-h  the  consecrated 
and  transubstantiated  elements.  And  that  they  did  not  depend 
on  the  behef  or  unbelief  of  the  communicant.  They  de- 
pended on  the  material  things,  external  to  them,  and  not  on 
the  things  that  were  internal.  He  said,  that  he  asked  the 
explanation  for  the  sake  of  others  who  were  present,  as  well 
as  for  himself. 

I  gladly  acceded  to  his  proposal,  and  said,  that  I  would 
endeavor  to  explain  the  meaning  and  intention  of  the  words 
of  our  Lord.  And  that  I  would  do  so  the  more  readily,  as  I 
believed  they  were  often  much  misunderstood.  We  believe 
that  our  Lord  designed  the  Sacrament  to  be  a  commemoration 
or  memorial  of  His  death  on  the  Cross.  He  said,  on  giving 
the  bread,  "  Do  this  in  remembrance  of  ilfe."     And  again,  on 


824  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

giving  the  wine,  He  said  :  "  Do  this  in  remembrance  of  MeP 
So  that  we  have  His  own  words  for  behevinar  this  Sacrament 
to  be  a  commemoration  or  memorial  of  His  death  on  the 
Cross.  He  took  bread  and  breaking  it,  gave  it  to  the  dis- 
ciples, and  said :  "  Take,  eat,  this  is  My  body  ;"  and  then  giv- 
ing the  wine.  He  said  :  "  Drink  ye  all  of  it,  for  this  is  My 
blood  of  the  New  Testament,  which  is  shed  for  many  for  the 
remission  of  sins."  We  believe  that  as  He  designed  this  to 
be  a  remembrance  of  His  gi-eat  love  in  dying  for  us,  and  in 
remembrance  of  the  blessings  which  we  have  obtained  by  His 
death,  so  when  He  said  :  "  Take,  eat,  this  is  My  body."  He 
meant  to  convey,  that  we  were  to  partake  of  that  Sacrament, 
receiving  the  bread  as  the  memorial  of  His  body  that  was 
broken  on  the  Cross  ;  and  when  he  said :  "  Drink  ye  all  of 
this,  for  this  is  my  blood,"  He  meant  to  convey  that  we  were 
to  partake  of  that  wine  as  the  memorial  of  His  blood  that 
was  shed  on  the  Cross.  This  we  believe  to  be  the  true  and 
natural  interpretation  of  His  words.  It  is  surrounded  with  no 
difficulties,  it  presents  to  us  nothing  marvelous,  it  involves  no 
contradictions,  it  is  encompassed  with  no  absurdities ;  it  is 
simple  and  natural,  conformable  to  the  usages  of  language, 
and  in  accordance  with  the  customs  of  the  Jews. 

This  mode  of  interpretation  is  conformable  to  the  usages 
of  language.  There  is  nothing  more  frequent  than  the  habit 
of  calling  the  memorial  or  representation  of  a  thing  by  the 
very  name  of  the  thing  of  which  it  is  a  token.  If  we  enter 
St.  Paul's  Cathedral,  or  if  we  enter  Westminster  Abbey,  we 
are  arrested  by  the  sight  of  many  memorial  statues.  We  look 
on  one,  and  we  say,  "  This  is  Nelson  ;"  and  on  another,  and 
we  say,  "  This  is  Marlborough."  We  do  not  mean  to  convey 
that  those  marble  statues  are  literally  changed  or  transub- 
stantiated into  Nelson  or  Marlborough,  but  only  that  they  are 
the  memorials  or  representations  of  those  celebrated  heroes. 
If  we  visit  the  galleries  of  Windsor  Castle,  or  of  Hampton 
Court,  or  our  National  Gallery,  as  our  eyes  wander  from  pic- 
ture to  picture,  and  we  are  told  that  "  This  is  Wellington,"  or 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION.  325 

"  This  is  Prince  Albert,"  or  "  This  is  the  Queen,"  *  we  are  not 
so  reft  of  all  reason  as  to  suppose  that  our  informant  intends 
to  <.onvey  that  these  lifeless  pictures  are  really  changed  or 
transubstantiated  into  the  Duke,  or  the  Prince,  or  the  Queen  ; 
but  only  that  they  are  the  representations  of  these  remarkable 
persons.  If  we  take  a  handful  of  the  coin  of  the  realm,  and 
look  upon  the  impressions  that  are  stamped  on  them,  we  say 
of  one,  "  This  is  George  III. ;"  of  a  second,  "  This  is  George 
IV. ;"  of  a  third,  "  This  is  William  IV. ;  of  another,  "  This  is 
Victoria  ;"  and  we  are  never  understood  as  meaning  to  con- 
vey that  these  pieces  of  copper,  or  silver,  or  gold,  are  literally 
changed  or  transubstantiated  into  these  royal  persons.  The 
youngest  child  is  incapable  of  so  gross  a  mistake,  for  from 
earliest  years  we  are  all  familiar  with  that  mode  of  expression. 
And  even  the  members  of  the  Church  of  Rome  themselves, 
when  they  look  on  images  or  pictures  of  Mary,  or  of  Peter,  or 
of  Christ,  familiarly  say  of  them,  "  This  is  the  Virgin,"  or 
"  This  is  Peter,"  or  "  This  is  Christ,"  merely  meaning  to  con- 
vey that  they  are  the  representations  or  memorials  of  them  : 
for  they,  as  well  as  ourselves,  are  familiar  with  that  method  of 
expression,  which  calls  the  rej^resentation  or  tnemorial  by  the 
name  of  that  of  which  it  is  a  representation  or  memorial. 

That  this  method  of  expression  was  as  familiar  with  the 
sacred  writers  as  with  ourselves,  can  easily  be  demonstrated. 
As  clear  and  beautiful  an  instance  as  we  could  j^ossibly  desire 
occurs  in  the  history  of  Abraham.  We  read  :  "  This  is  my 
covenant,  which  ye  shall  keep,  between  me  and  you  and  thy 
seed  after  thee  ;  every  man-cliikl  among  you  shall  be  circum- 
cised. And  ye  shall  circumcise  the  flesh  of  your  foreskin  ; 
and  it  shall  be  a  token  of  the  covenant  betwixt  Me  and  you." 
— Gen.  xvii.  10,  11.  It  is  here  said  of  circumcision  in  one 
verse  :  "  This  is  my  covenant ;"  and  then  in  the  next  verse  it 
is  said  :  "  It  shall  be  a  token  of  the  covenant.^''  So  that  we 
have  here  evidence  of  the  mode  in  which  such  expressions  are 

**  These  are  not  the  illustrations  originallj  given.  They  were  names 
of  persons  familiar  in  the  neighborhood,  and  these  are  given  in  their 
Btead,  to  make  the  illustration  more  generally  intelligible. 


326  EVENINGS   WITH   THE    ROMANISTS. 

to  be  int<  I'preted — the  token  of  tlie  covenant  being  called  the 
covenant  itself.  The  reiteration  of  this  method  of  expression 
is  so  constant  in  every  part  of  the  sacred  volume,  that  the  dif- 
ficulty is  in  making  a  selection.  "  These  bones  are  the  whole 
house  of  Israel." — Ezek.  xxxvii.  11.  "The  rough  goat  is  the 
Kins:  of  Grecia." — Dan.  viii.  21.  Althouo-h  it  is  e^ddent  these 
bones  were  not  the  reality,  but  the  emblem  of  the  house  of 
Israel ;  and  this  goat  was  not  substantially,  but  only  in  the 
way  of  representation,  the  King  of  Greece.  And  in  the  same 
way,  when  our  Lord  says,  "  I  am  the  Door,"  and  "  I  am  the 
Vine,  and  ye  are  the  branches  ;"  it  is  self-evident  that  He 
could  not  possibly  have  meant  that  He  was  literally,  truly, 
substantially  changed  or  transubstantiated  into  a  door  or  a 
vine,  or  that  His  people  are  transubstantiated  into  the 
branches  of  a  vine.  The  same  remark  will  apply,  when  the 
apostle  says,  "  That  Rock  was  Christ,"  and  "  This  Hagar  is 
Mount  Sinai."  The  true,  the  simple,  the  natural  interpretation 
of  these  and  of  all  similar  expressions  is,  that,  being  figurative, 
according  to  the  analogies  of  every  language  in  the  world, 
the  sign,  or  emblem,  or  memorial  is  called  by  the  name  of  that 
of  which  it  is  the  sign,  or  emblem,  or  memorial.  And,  there- 
fore, we  argue,  that  when  our  Lord  gave  the  bread  to  His 
disciples,  intending  the  Lord's  Supper  as  a  memorial  of  His 
death  on  the  Cross,  and  said,  "  This  is  My  body,"  He  meant 
to  convey  that  it  was  to  be  the  memorial  or  emblem  of  His 
body  broken  on  the  Cross ;  and  that  when  He  gave  the  cup, 
and  said,  "  This  is  My  blood,"  He  designed  to  convey  that  it 
was  to  be  the  memorial  or  emblem  of  that  blood  which  was 
shed  on  the  Cross  ;  and  that,  partaking  of  these  in  the  face 
of  the  Church,  every  Christian  would  show  his  belief  in  the 
atonement,  satisfaction,  propitiation,  wrought  in  the  death  on 
Calvary,  and  that  he  looked  to  it  and  depended  on  it  for  re- 
demption, forgiveness,  salvation,  and  glory. 

My  aged  friend,  who  was  a  very  good  old  man,  expressed 
himself  perfectly  satisfied  with  my  explanation,  but  said  that 
there  was  a  question  often  asked  by  his  Roman  Catholic 
neighbors,  and  as  some  few  of  them  w^ere  present,  he  would 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION.  -     327 

like  me  for  their  sakes  to  notice  it.  The  question  was — 
whether  our  Lord  had  not  given  to  the  clergy  of  his  Church  a 
power  to  turn — to  change  the  bread  and  the  wine  into  the 
body  and  blood  and  soul  and  divinity  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.  There  were  several  indications  among  those  present, 
approving  of  the  proposal  that  I  should  touch  on  this  question. 
I  replied,  expressing  my  readiness  to  answer  that  or  any 
other  inquiry  to  the  best  of  the  light  that  God  had  given  me.  I 
therefore  said  that  so  extraordinary  a  thing  as  transubstantia- 
tion — so  marvelous  a  miracle  as  turning  a  piece  of  bread  into 
God — so  great  a  miracle,  and  one  so  different  from  any  thing 
and  every  thing  the  world  has  ever  heard,  and  so  great  that  it 
is,  if  true,  the  greatest  miracle  the  world  has  ever  seen — 
ought  to  be  provable  by  evidence  more  clear  and  decisive 
than  a  mere  expression  capable  of  a  figurative  interpretation, 
as  all  must  admit  was  the  case  with  the  woi'ds  of  our  Lord. 
For  though  the  advocates  of  Rome  contend  that  the  words 
ought  to  be  explained  in  a  literal  sense,  yet  I  have  found  many 
an  opponent  candidly  admit  that  they  are  capable  of  being 
explained  in  a  figurative  sense.  And  my  argument  has  then 
been,  that  so  extraordinary  a  doctrine  as  transubstantiation 
can  not  be  regarded  as  proved,  when  it  is  made  to  dejiend  upon 
a  particular  interpretation  of  a  phrase,  tvhich  it  is  admitted  is 
capable  of  a  totally  different  interpretation.  Having  thus  for 
weakened  all  dependence  on  this,  I  have  argued  further,  that 
even  if  we  adopted  the  literal  interpretration  of  our  Lord's 
words — even  if  we  adopted  the  notion  that  our  Lord  did  truly, 
literally  transubstantiate  the  bread  into  His  own  "  body  and 
blood  and  soul  and  divinity  and  bones  and  nerves," — even  if 
we  adopted  this  notion,  it  yet  would  not  serve  the  purpose  of 
the  Church  of  Rome  ;  because,  it  would  by  no  means  follow 
that  because  Christ  being  God  was  able  to  perform  the  mir- 
acle, every  Roman  priest  also  should  therefore  be  able  to  per- 
form it.  He  walked  on  the  waters  :  His  having  done  so,  is  no 
pi'oof  that  the  Roman  priests  can  now  walk  upon  the  waters. 
He  stilled  the  winds  and  the  waves  :  His  having  done  so  is  no 
proof  that  the  Romish  priests  can  now  still  the  winds  and  the 


828  EVENINGS    WITH   THE    R0MANKT8. 

waves.  He  multiplied  the  five  loaves  and  fishes,  so  as  to  feed 
thousands :  His  having  done  so  is  no  proof  that  the  Romish 
priests  can  now  multiply  food  so  as  to  supply  the  wants  of 
thousands.  He  healed  the  sick,  the  blind,  the  deaf,  the 
maimed,  the  leprous,  and  He  raised  the  dead :  His  having 
wrought  these  miracles,  by  his  divine  power,  is  no  proof  that 
the  Romish  priests  can  now  perform  similar  miracles.  And 
therefore  we  argue  that,  even  if  we  suppose — which  we  do 
only  for  the  sake  of  the  argument — that  our  Lord  did  work  a 
miraculous  transubstantiation  of  the  bread  into  God,  His  hav- 
ing wrought  such  a  miracle  by  His  divine  power,  is  no  proof 
that  the  Romish  priests  can  now  work  the  same  miracle. 

When  I  concluded  this,  one  of  the  Roman  Catholics  sug- 
gested in  a  very  modest  and  courteous  way,  that  when  our 
Lord  said,  "  Do  this  in  remembrance  of  me,"  He  commanded 
them  to  do  the  same  thing  that  He  did,  and  of  course  must 
be  supposed  to  have  given  them  power  to  do  it.  Now  if 
our  Lord  transubstantiated  the  bread  and  wine  into  his  own 
body  and  blood  and  soul  and  divinity,  as  the  Church  believes ; 
then  He  must  have  given  his  apostles  power  to  do  the  same 
in  remembrance  of  Him. 

I  said  that  this  text — these  words,  had  a  heavier  burden  to 
bear  in  the  Church  of  Rome  than  perhaps  any  other  words 
in  the  Holy  Scriptures  ;  for  if  we  ask  what  authority  they 
have  for  administering  this  sacrament,  they  answer — our 
Lord  said  "  Do  this."  When  we  ask  authority  for  the  laity 
receiving  the  sacrament,  they  answer — our  Lord  said  "  Do 
this."  When  we  inquire  when  the  apostles  were  ordained 
priests,  they  answer — our  Lord  said  "  Do  this."  When  we 
ask  for  evidence  that  the  sacrament  is  a  propitiatory  or  aton- 
ing sacrifice,  they  answer — our  Lord  said  "  Do  this."  When 
we  ask  for  their  authority  for  saying  that  the  priests  of  Rome 
can  change  the  bread  and  wine  into  their  Saviour  and  their 
God,  they  answer — our  Lord  said  "  Do  this."  And  thus  these 
two  little  words  mean  sometimes  "  Administer  this,"  sometimes 
"  Receive  this,"  sometimes  "  I  ordain  you  priest,"  sometimes 
"  Offer  this  sacrifice  of  the  Mass."  and  sometimes  "  transub- 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION.  329 

stantiate  this."  Certainly  no  two  little  words  ever  had  so 
much  or  so  many  meanings  !  Now,  I  added,  it  seems  to  me 
simply  to  mean  that  as  He  and  his  apostles,  his  chosen  and 
beloved  disciples,  were  then  solemnly  sitting  and  eating  to- 
gether in  holy  communion,  love,  and  brotherhood — so  in  after 
ages,  Avhen  he  was  gone  from  them,  they  should  still  meet 
together,  and  eat  and  drink  together,  in  holy  love  and  fellow- 
ship and  brotherhood,  in  remembrance  of  all  his  love  in  dying 
for  them — ^in  remembrance  of  his  sutFerinffs  and  death  for 
their  salvation  ;  and  thus  these  words  have  no  distinctly  doc- 
trinal or  controversial  intention  ;  but  simply  desire  all  his 
loving  and  believing  people  to  hold  such  holy  and  brotherly 
communion  together  in  remembrance  of  Him  : — "  Do  this  in 
remembrance  of  MeP 

I  availed  myself  of  the  opportunity  afforded  me  by  this  to 
express  myself  upon  the  importance  of  Christians  cultivating 
a  tone  of  mind  and  a  habit  of  feeling  that  should  be  charac- 
terized by  kindness  and  benevolence,  charity  and  love  ;  each 
of  us  in  all  our  conduct  showing  that,  however  we  are  en- 
gaged, we  cherish  a  remembrance  of  Him  who  loved  us,  and 
gave  Himself  for  us.  We  then  all  knelt  and  prayed  together, 
and  soon  after  we  separated. 

On  my  way  home,  I  learned,  what  indeed  I  had  suspected, 
that  the  young  person  to  whom  I  had  already  referred,  was 
the  one  at  whose  wish  the  question  was  proposed  to  me,  as  to 
the  meaning  of  our  Lord's  words.  It  was  the  first  time  she 
had  ever  heard  any  thing  from  me  in  reference  to  the  Church 
of  Rome  or  any  controversial  subject.  And  it  led  to  much 
communication  afterward,  till  she  openly  avowed  herself  a 
Protestant,  and  became  a  regular  attendant  at  my  evening 
lectures  in  the  school-room.  She  so  far  complied  with  the 
wishes  of  her  aunt,  that  she  did  not  attend  the  services  of  the 
Church. 

Her  sufferings  for  the  truth's  sake,  which  she  loved  with  all 
the  fervor  of  youth  and  first  love,  soon  commenced.  Her 
aunt  threatened  and  the  priest  argued.  She  bore  the  threats 
of  one  she  very  dearly  loved,  with  a  sweetness  and  meekness, 


330  EVKNINGS    WITH   THE    ROMANISTS. 

and  at  the  same  time  with  a  depth  of  affection  that  was  as  a 
knife  in  her  very  heart ;  but  she  replied  to  the  arguments  of 
the  priest  always  by  some  appropriate  passage  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, and  ever  with  a  quiet  and  gentle  spirit.  Indeed,  it  was 
not  her  nature  to  do  otherwise  with  any  one,  or  under  any 
circumstances.  The  result  was  a  system  of  slow  but  ceaseless 
persecution,  originating,  no  doubt,  in  the  kindest  intentions, 
and  with  a  desire  to  save  her  soul  by  bringing  her  back  to 
what  they  fondly  believed  the  only  true  Church  ;  but  though 
thus  originating,  it  was  not  the  less  bitter  and  unrelenting. 
At  first  she  was  compelled  to  long  fasts,  by  her  aunt  denying 
her  the  accustomed  food.  Then  she  withheld  her  clothes  so 
as  to  prevent  her  attending  the  lectures.  She  even  went  so  far 
as  to  take  from  her  her  shoes  and  stockings.  And  finally,  she 
turned  her  bodily  out  of  doors,  refusing  any  longer  to  support 
her. 

It  will  of  course  be  easier  to  imagine  than  to  describe  the 
state  of  suffering  afiliction  which  that  young  creature,  about 
eighteen  or  nineteen  years  of  age,  was  thus  already  called  to 
endure.  Separated  from  her  father  and  mother,  from  her 
brothers  and  sisters,  by  the  broad  Atlantic — left  wholly  desti- 
tute as  the  poorest  of  the  children  of  poverty — wholy  uncon- 
scious where  she  could  turn  for  a  roof  to  shelter  her  or  a  meal 
to  satisfy  her  hunger — she  could  but  sit  down  and  weep,  and 
she  did  weep  in  a  very  agony  of  tears.  And  then,  after  a 
while,  she  calmed  her  heart  and  turned  to  Him  who  desired 
her  to  cast  all  her  care  upon  Him,  knowing  that  he  careth  for 
us.  She  remembered,  as  she  afterward  told  me,  the  words 
of  the  Psalmist,  the  first  she  had  ever  heard  me  explain,  "  I 
have  been  young  and  now  am  old,  yet  never  saw  I  the  right- 
eous forsaken  or  his  seed  begging  their  bread."  These  words, 
she  afterward  told  me,  to  use  her  own  beautiful  idea,  were 
hke  the  tree  in  a  sunny  evening  after  a  day  of  rain ;  the 
breath  of  evening  shakes  the  leaves  and  all  becomes  a  shower 
of  sparkling  diamonds.  She  felt  assured  that  God  would 
raise  up  some  means  of  deliverance.  And  as  she  comforted 
herself  with  these  thoughts,  one  of  my  poor  people,  a  very 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION.  331 

poor  but  very  pious  woman,  saw  her,  heard  her  tale,  knew  her 
former  history,  and  took  her  to  her  own  home,  and  told  her 
she  should  have  a  home  with  her  own  three  daughters  as  long 
as  she  needed  it. 

All  this  was  immediately  communicated  to  me.  Every 
thing  was  done  to  mitigate  the  feelings  of  the  aunt.  She  would 
not  give  way  unless  on  the  simple  condition  of  her  returning 
to  the  Church  of  Rome.  And  thus  this  poor  young  creature 
was  flung  destitute  upon  the  world. 

This  gu'l,  now  reduced  from  comparative  independence  and 
respectability  of  station,  to  the  position  of  one  of  the  poorest 
peasant-girls  of  the  place,  was  obliged  to  go  without  shoes  to 
her  feet,  or  a  bonnet  on  her  head,  or  any  one  of  the  comforts 
in  which  she  had  been  reared,  and  to  which  she  had  been  ac- 
customed. Those  with  whom  she  lived  were  very  poor,  and 
very  kind;  but  they  and  she  Avere  very  much  dressed  alike; 
and  although  I  made  arrangements  unknown  to  her,  by 
which  she  should  be  no  additional  expense  to  this  Christian 
family,  yet  I  felt  it  was  not  ad^nsable  for  me  to  do  more 
than  was  absolutely  necessary  for  her  subsistence,  until  such 
time  as  she  could  amply  prove  to  the  world  the  sincerity  of 
her  profession  by  suffering  for  it,  and  until  there  could  be  no 
room  in  the  mind  of  any  one  for  impeaching  the  motives  of 
her  conversion.  Those  who  are  acquainted  with  the  coimtry 
will  appreciate  this. 

She  now  regularly  attended  the  parish  church  and  the  even- 
ing lectures  at  the  school-room,  and  seemed,  in  her  deep  pover- 
ty, more  happy  in  her  inner  life  than  she  had  ever  been ;  but 
such  was  the  sad  and  painful  and  disgraceful  state  of  the 
country — such  was  the  accursed  spirit  of  malignity  and  per- 
secution— such  was  the  lukewarmness  of  the  magistracy,  and 
unwillingness  to  protect  on  the  part  of  the  police,  in  cases 
where  religion  was  concerned — that  every  evening,  as  my 
little  congregation  issued  from  the  school-room,  there  was  a 
band  of  men  and  women  ranged  in  two  lines  from  the  doorway, 
and  the  moment  this  poor  young  creature  appeared,  they  all 
raised  a  yelling,  a  hooting,  and  jeering  against  her,  caUing  her 


332  EVKNINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

every  opprobrious  and  contemptuous  name  for  leaving  the 
Church  of  Rome.  Nothing  could  have  saved  her  from  per- 
sonal violence  but  the  steadiness  and  determination  of  some  of 
the  men  of  my  congregation,  who,  though  they  could  not  pro- 
tect her  from  insolence,  were  well  able  to  protect  her  from 
violence.  This  continued  for  many,  many  weeks,  till  the 
people  got  tired  of  persecuting  her,  when  they  saw  that  they 
failed  to  influence  her,  and  when  the  priest  gave  up  all  hope 
of  reclaiming  her. 

I  had  now  some  breathing-time.  I  could  consider  what 
was  best  to  be  done  for  her,  and  had  consulted  with  some 
whose  judgment  was  of  value.  She  had  proved  her  sincerity 
by  her  steadfast  sufiering  for  the  love  of  the  truth.  She  had 
disproved,  in  her  continued  poverty,  all  insinuations  as  to  her 
being  bribed  to  abandon  her  former  faith.  She  had  ex- 
hibited a  steady,  gentle,  sweet,  industrious,  humble  spirit 
through  all  her  trials  :  and  it  now  became  the  duty  of  Christian 
persons  to  consider  what  was  best  to  be  done  for  her  ultimate 
provision. 

While  we  thought  of  these  things  with  some  doubts  and 
misgivings  and  perplexities,  there  was  an  unseen  hand  inter- 
posing in  a  mysterions  way. 

I  was  sitting  and  reading  one  morning  in  my  apartments, 
when  a  man  was  announced  and  entered.  After  a  pause,  and 
rather  a  rough  kind  of  salutation,  he  sat  down  and  I  had  time 
to  examine  his  appearance.  He  was  very  much  like  the 
skipper  of  a  merchantman — at  least  like  some  I  had  seen 
in  my  sea-going  years.  He  was  an  open,  free,  frank  and 
rough  person,  homely  as  a  farmer,  and  fearless  as  a  sailor. 
But  I  could  see  there  was  something  at  his  heart :  for 
with  all  his  free  manners  there  was  something  like  a 
tear  starting  to  his  eyes.  He  was  to  me  a  total  stranger, 
but  I  felt  disposed  to  like  him,  and  asked  him  his  name  and 
business. 

My  name,  he  said,  is ,  from  the  state  of  Ohio. 

I  instantly  recognized  the  name,  and  asked  whether  it  was 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION.  333 

not  he  who  had  emigrated  fi'om  that  parish  so  many  years  be- 
fore, and  had  left  one  daughter  behind  ? 

He  said  he  was  the  very  man.  He  had  lost  his  wife  and 
was  now  come  back  to  the  old  country  to  recover  his  child 
and  biing  her  to  America,  to  keep  house  for  him,  as  his  other 
children  were  all  married  and  settled  there. 

Here  a  God  of  love  and  mercy  Himself  opened  out  to  me 
the  best  and  fittest  provision  for  the  young  creature.  Her  fa- 
ther was  come  for  her  ! 

After  a  few  words,  he  told  me  he  had  arrived  only  that 
morning,  and  went  immediately  to  see  his  child  at  her  aunt's. 
He  expressed  himself  shocked  and  indignant  at  the  conduct 
of  her  aunt  in  turning  her  out  upon  the  streets,  exposed  to 
poverty,  destitution,  and  temptation  ; — a  young  girl  who  was 
intrusted  to  her  on  the  promise  to  love,  cherish,  and  provide 
for  her ;  and  for  no  misconduct,  no  vice,  no  crime,  but  merely 
because  she  had  changed  her  religion.  He  then  turned  to  me, 
and  with  deep  and  unmistakable  emotion,  with  a  fearfulness 
in  his  manner,  as  if  afraid  of  my  answer,  and  yet  with  all  the 
yearning  anxiety  of  a  father's  heart,  he  asked  me,  earnestly, 
what  was  his  child's  character,  and  what  was  become  of  her. 

I  told  him  in  a  few  words. 

I  shall  never  forget  the  effect  of  my  words.  That  strong, 
rough  man  was  subdued,  melted  into  tears,  and  sobbed  and 
wept  like  a  little  child.  It  was  the  joy  and  blessedness  of  a 
parent's  heart  scattering  all  the  fears  and  anxieties  that  had 
oppressed  him.  He  seemed  choking  for  words  to  express  his 
thankfulness  ;  and  it  was  some  time  before  he  was  able  to  ask 
me  to  bring  him  to  his  child. 

I  felt,  however,  I  had  a  duty  to  perform  to  the  child  as  well 
as  to  the  father  ;  and  I  hoped  that  in  his  then  state  of  feeling 
he  might  be  disposed  to  make  a  solemn  promise  not  to  inter- 
fere with  the  adopted  religion  of  his  daughter.  I  knew  he 
was  a  Romanist,  and  I  feared  his  unduly  interfering  with  her 
religious  convictions.  I  therefore  expressed  myself  frankly 
and  at  once.  I  told  him  the  circumstances  of  her  conversion, 
I  described  her  piety  and  religiousness ;  I  expressed  myself 


S34  EVENINGS   WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

strongly  as  to  her  good  conduct  and  character ;  and  finally 
said,  that  I  felt  almost  unwilling  to  place  her,  a  Protestant,  in 
the  hands  of  him  a  Romanist. 

He  smiled  good-humoredly,  and  said  that  I  need  have  no 
fear  on  that  head.  In  America  no  man  interfered,  or  was  al- 
lowed to  interfere  with  the  religion  of  another.  It  was  alto- 
gether different  from  what  it  was  in  his  recollection  in  Ireland. 
This  country,  he  said,  in  reference  to  Ireland,  is  a  wretched, 
miserable,  factious  country,  and  the  people  are  bigoted  and 
priest-ridden,  so  that  they  can  not  help  themselves,  or  get  out 
of  their  wretchedness ;  as  long  as  he  had  lived  in  it  himself, 
he  had  not  only  found  it  so,  but  was  himself  a  helpless,  though 
unwilling  victim  to  the  system.  It  was  as  much  as  a  man's 
life  was  worth  to  leave  the  Churoh  of  Rome  ;  for  the  faction 
of  the  priest  was  sure  to  do  his  bidding.  But  in  America  all 
was  changed  ;  he  felt  as  if  breathing  the  free  air  made  him 
feel  free  himself,  and  entertain  free  feelings  and  free  opinions. 
He  cast  aside  all  the  party  notions  and  factious  ways  he  had 
recollected  in  this  country  ;  and  it  was  impossible  in  America 
for  the  priests  to  have  the  influence  or  the  power  to  persecute 
and  ill-treat  those  who  leave  them.  Indeed  so  many,  who 
were  inveterate  Roman  Catholics,  turn  and  leave  them — so 
many  read  the  Scriptures — so  many  go  to  the  Protestant  wor- 
ship and  prayer  and  preaching,  that  it  would  be  impossible  to 
interfere  with  them. 

I  asked  him  then,  how,  if  his  child  went  out  with  him,  how 
she  would  be  provided  in  the  way  of  public  worship. 

He  then  stated  what  was  very  new  to  me,  and  certainly 
was  extremely  interesting.  He  said  he  could  only  speak  of 
the  country  where  he  had  himself  settled,  and  which  was  very 
extensively  settled  all  around  him  ;  but  he  believed  from 
what  he  heard  of  other  districts,  that  it  was  by  no  means  sin- 
gular. There  was  no  regular  or  established  Church  of  any 
kind,  but  clergymen  of  different  Churches  used  to  visit  the  dis- 
trict periodically.  One  week  we  have  the  visit  of  a  Church 
of  England  clergyman  at  the  house  of  one  settler,  and  then  all 
the  settlers  assemble  there,  and  we  have  the  Church  of  Eng- 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION.  335 

land  service ;  the  next  week  some  Presbyterian  minister 
comes  to  the  house  of  another  settler,  and  then  all  the  settlers 
in  the  neighborhood  come  together  there,  and  we  have  the 
Presbyterian  prayers  and  preaching.  On  another  week  the 
Wesleyan  minister  arrives  at  the  house  of  some  one  else,  and 
we  all  assemble  there,  and  we  have  Methodist  praying  and 
preaching.  Then  there  is  the  Baptist  minister  ;  and  thus  we 
have  a  great  number  of  clergymen,  and  we  assemble  very  often 
at  other  houses  and  sometimes  at  other  settlements.  In  this 
description  he  mentioned  the  names  of  the  settlers  and 
clergymen. 

So  I  asked  him  how  he  managed  at  his  own  house : — Had 
he  a  Roman  Catholic  priest  ? 

He  smiled,  and  said  there  were  very  few  of  them  in  the 
country,  and  that  for  himself  and  his  family  they  never  wished 
or  cared  to  see  one.  He  said  he  and  his  family  acted  like  all 
the  other  settlers,  they  went  wherever  they  had  the  preach- 
ing, and  he  felt  that  every  one  of  the  clergymen,  who  thus 
visited  them,  was  a  good,  earnest  man,  and  he  liked  them 
better  than  any  priests  he  had  ever  known,  "  and"  turning 
earnestly  to  me,  he  said,  "  my  little  girl  shall  always  go  with 
us  to  the  meeting,  if  you  have  no  objection,  for  all  my  child- 
ren always  do  so." 

I  could  not  but  feel  very  thankful  at  hearing  all  this,  I  gave 
him  my  assent  with  all  my  heart,  and  I  would  not  detain  him 
a  moment  longer  from  his  child. 

A  few  moments  brought  him  to  the  house  where  she  lived. 
It  was  a  happy  meeting  for  both  parties  ;  I  of  course  with- 
drew, but  saw  them  the  next  day.  The  more  I  saw  of  the 
man,  the  more  I  liked  him.  There  was  an  amount  of  honest 
purpose  and  right  feehng,  combined  with  common  sense  and 
energy  of  character  that  was  very  unusual ;  and  he  presented 
in  his  own  person,  a  fine  illustration  of  what  the  character  of 
the  Irish  might  become,  when  once  emancipated  from  the 
iron  priestly  domination  which  oppresses  them.  Within  a 
very  few  days,  he  had  his  daughter  well-dressed ;  and  they 


336  EVENINGS   WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

caused  no  small  sensation  in  the  place.     In  faith  and  hope 
and  charity,  as  well  as  in  prayer,  we  soon  parted. 

The  singular  statement  which  he  gave,  as  to  the  state  of 
religious  instruction  in  the  remote  settlement  where  he  was 
located,  seems  to  account  very  much  for  the  religious  change 
so  remarkable  among  so  many  of  the  Roman  Catholics  who 
have  emigrated  to  America. 


TEANSUBSTANTIATION.— II. 


An  Anecdote  narrated  by  a  Eomanist  respecting  himself — The  Argument  of  a  Priest 
answered — Exi^lanation  of  our  Lord's  use  of  His  peculiar  Language — The  Feast 
of  the  Passover  explains  His  Words — ^The  Argument  against  Transubstantiatioa 
from  Eeason — Defect  of  this — The  Argument  from  the  Bodily  Senses,  illustrated 
by  an  Anecdote — Transubstantiation  and  the  Trinity  contrasted — The  Evidence 
of  the  Senses,  appealed  to  as  Infallible — Always  appealed  to  by  God  himself  in  all 
His  Eevelation. 


The  following  conversation  took  place  under  unusual  cir- 
cumstances. 

I  Lad  accepted  an  invitation  to  dinner.  It  was  near  the 
county  town,  and  during  the  assizes.  The  lai'ger  portion  of 
the  grand  jurors  were  present.  After  the  usual  amount  of 
local  politics  had  been  discussed,  we  adjourned  to  the  draw- 
ing-room.    Many  ladies  were  present. 

A  Roman  Catholic  gentleman — a  member  of  Parliament — ■ 
drew  me  aside  and  after  a  few  moments'  conversation,  nar 
rated  the  following  anecdote  respecting  himself. 

He  had  been  in  Dublin  a  few  days  before,  and  had  been  in- 
duced by  a  party  with  whom  he  was  staying,  to  go  one  even- 
ing to  the  chapel  in  the to  hear  a  controversial  oration 

or  lecture  from  a  very  celebrated  Eoman  Catholic  priest. 
There  was  a  vast  assembly,  a  large  aimount  of  excitement,  and 
a  very  splendid  display  of  oratory.  lie  said  it  was  more 
flashy,  brilliant,  piquant,  than  he  liked  for  the  pulpit,  but  it 
was  very  popular  and  very  effective,  it  was  not  sufficiently 
calm,  collective  and  argumentative  for  him,  but  that  perhaps 
was  the  fault  of  his  taste.  It  was  on  the  whole  a  very  able 
address.  He  said  the  subject  was  Transubstantiation,  and  that 
the  orator,  when  handling  the  words,  "This  is  my  body"  and 
"  This  is  my  blood,"  had  paused,  so  as  to  cause  au  intense  and 

15 


838  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    R0MANIST3. 

profound  silence  througli  tlie  vast  congregation,  all  watching, 
and  as  it  were  holding  their  breath,  for  hira  to  proceed.  At 
this  moment  he  burst  out  into  a  passionate  and  most  impress- 
ive tone,  asking — "  When  the  blessed  Lord  said,  '  This  is  my 
body,'  how  dare  the  Protestants  to  say,  it  is  not  His  body  ? 
When  the  blessed  Lord  said  again,  '  This  is  my  blood,'  how 
dare  the  Protestants  to  say  it  is  not  His  blood  ?  They  are 
always  talking  about  the  Scriptures,  and  they  are  always  tell- 
ing us  that  the  Scriptures,  the  whole  Scriptures  and  nothing 
but  the  Scriptures,  will  satisfy  them,  and  yet  here  the  Scrip- 
tures say,  '  This  is  my  body,'  and  '  This  is  my  blood,'  how 
dare  these  Protestants  say  it  is  neither  the  one  nor  the  other, 
but  must  be  explained  in  some  spiritual  or  figurative  or  mys- 
tical sense  ?  "  The  Roman  Catholic  gentleman,  who  narrated 
this,  said,  it  had  an  electrifying  effect  on  the  audience — that 
for  himself  while  he  admired  the  oratory  and  the  acting,  he 
could  not  but  think  very  lightly  of  the  argument — that  the 
next  day  he  had  dined  at  the  house  of  a  well-known  Roman 
Catholic  leader — that  the  priest  of  the  preceding  evening  was 
one  of  the  company,  and  that  there  was  some  conversation 
about  the  discourse,  and  especially  about  the  passage  already 
described.  This  Roman  Catholic  gentleman  stated  that  he 
himself  turned  to  the  priest  and  said — "  When  our  Lord  has 
said  '  I  am  the  true  vine,'  how  dare  the  Romanists  to  say  He 
is  not  a  vine  ?  When  our  Lord  has  said,  '  I  am  a  door,'  how 
dare  the  Romanists  to  say  He  is  not  a  door  ?  When  our  Lord 
has  said,  '  I  am  the  Good  Shepherd,'  how  dare  the  Romanists 
say  He  is  not  a  shepherd  ?  And  when  the  language  of  Scrip- 
ture is  so  clear  and  plain,  saying  He  is  a  door,  and  a  vine,  and 
a  shepherd,  how  dare  the  Romanists  to  deny  or  contradict 
these  words,  and  say  they  are  to  be  explained  in  a  spiritual  or 
figurative  sense  ?"  He  stated,  that  having  said  this  to  the  priest 
before  all  the  company,  very  much  to  their  surprise,  he  asked 
him  how  he  would  answer  such  an  argument  from  a  Protest- 
ant, if  urged  in  reply  to  his  argument  ?  He  added  that  the 
priest  became  thoroughly  confused,  and  stammered  a  number 
of  things  that  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  question,  though 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION.  339 

very  much  to  the  amusement  of  many  of  the  company,  and 
especially  of  their  host,  whose  keen,  quick,  twinkling  eye 
seemed  thoroughly  to  enjoy  this  confusion  of  the  priest. 
When  he  had  concluded  his  anecdote,  he  asked  me  what  I 
thouglit  of  his  answer  ? 

I  told  him  very  frankly  that  I  thought  he  gave  as  good  a 
reply  as  such  an  argument  would  admit  of — that  the  argu- 
ment itself  was  a  mere  popular  clap-trap,  and  was  best  an- 
swered in  the  same  way — that  Solomon  had  desired  us  to 
answer  a  fool  according  to  his  folly,  and  that  in  my  judgment 
he  had  given  precisely  the  kind  of  answer  such  an  argument 
deserved. 

He  then  said,  afler  a  few  more  observations,  that  he  thought 
that  if  priests  and  parsons  would  explain  the  language  of  the 
Scriptures,  and  tell  their  meaning  and  illustrate  the  reason  for 
what  they  say,  they  would  serve  the  cause  infinitely  more  than 
by  mere  controversial  arguments,  which  always  appear  to  be 
too  partisan — too  much  on  one  side — to  influence  cool  and 
well-balanced  judgments. 

I  said  that  such  was  the  usual  course  of  the  Protestant 
clergy  in  their  ordinary  ministrations.  At  their  ordination, 
the  Bible  was  placed  by  the  bishop  in  their  hands  with  the 
solemn  charge  to  preach  the  Gospel.  This  was  their  duty — 
to  preach  the  Scriptures. 

He  replied  that  I  had  mistaken  his  meaning — that  what  he 
had  intended  to  convey  was  that  an  explanation  of  the  phrases 
in  Scripture — a  fair,  sensible  exposition  of  them,  was  what 
would  prove  more  useful  than  any  thing  else.  He  would  ex- 
.  plain  himself  by  an  illustration.  Our  Lord  said,  "  This  is  my 
body,"  and  "This  is  my  blood."  Roman  Catholics  explain 
these  words  literally.  Protestants  explain  them  figuratively. 
]N^ow,  what  is  wanted  is  some  reason — some  explanation  why 
our  Lord  used  those  words  instead  of  any  other,  and  showing 
why,  if  he  meant  any  thing  beyond  the  very  words  themselves, 
he  did  not  say  more  precisely  what  he  meant.  If  he  meant 
them  figuratively  especially,  why  did  he  not  so  express  him- 
self 1 


340  EVENINGS   WITH    THE    K0MANIST8. 

I  replied  at  once,  that  liis  inquiry  was  perfectly  just  and 
legitimate ; — that  the  words  our  Lord  used  were  precisely  the 
words  we  should  have  expected  him  to  use,  and  the  words, 
that  of  all  others,  were  the  most  easy  and  the  most  likely  to 
be  understood  in  the  circumstances  under  which  they  were 
spoken.  The  meaning  of  phrases  and  allusions  always  de- 
pends more  or  less  on  the  circumstances  under  which  they 
were  spoken.  And  in  this  case  we  should  especially  consider 
the  circumstances.  This  consideration  has  always  satisfied  my 
own  judgment,  and  I  felt  sure  it  would  satisfy  his,  if  he  al- 
lowed me  to  explain  it. 

He  most  courteously  begged  me  to  proceed,  for  that  it  was 
a  point  in  which  he  felt  a  great  interest. 

I  then  said — It  was  when  our  Lord  was  eating  the  Passover 
with  His  disciples  that  He  instituted  the  sacrament.  It  will 
be  recollected  that  the  Passover  was  instituted  to  be  a  com- 
memoration of  the  deliverance  of  the  Israelites  from  the  bond- 
age of  Egypt,  through  their  being  sprinkled  with  the  blood  of 
the  Paschal  lamb.  It  was  when  partaking  of  this  festival  for 
the  last  time  with  His  disciples,  that  our  Lord  instituted  the 
sacrament,  to  be  a  commemoration  of  the  deliverance  of  His 
peojjle  from  the  bondage  of  sin,  through  their  being  sprinkled 
with  His  blood  as  "  the  Lamb  of  God  which  taketh  away  the 
sin  of  the  world.  It  is  admitted — fully  admitted  by  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Church  of  Rome — that  our  Lord  designed  to  re- 
scind the  Jewish  Passover  and  to  substitute  the  Christian  sac- 
rament in  its  stead.  But  the  precise  jtioiut  which  should  be 
retained  in  mind — the  point  which  explains  our  Lord's  words 
in  the  instituting  this  sacrament — is,  that  He  instituted  it 
while  eating  the  Passover.  It  was  the  bread  of  the  Passover  He 
took  and  blessed  and  distributed.  It  was  the  wine  of  the  Pass- 
over He  took  and  blessed  and  distributed.  Every  form  that  had 
been  gone  through  was  some  form  of  the  Passover  ;  and  every 
word  that  had  been  spoken  was  some  word  connected  with  the 
Passover.  Under  these  circumstances,  it  will  be  felt  by  rea- 
sonable men  that  as  it  was  not  unlikely  our  Lord's  words  and 
actions,  in  instituting  this  new  festival,  would  have  some  refer- 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION.  341 

cnce  to  those  of  the  old  festival,  so  it  is  to  the  Passover  we  are 
to  look  for  an  explanation  of  the  sacrament.  We  feel  as  sure 
as  of  any  verity  on  earth,  that  it  is  the  true  explanation  of  this 
matter.  When  Moses,  at  the  command  of  God,  instituted  the 
feast  of  the  Passover,  he  desired  the  Israelites,  as  we  read  in 
Exodus  xii.  1-14,  to  kill  a  lamb — to  sprinkle  its  blood  on  their 
houses,  and  to  eat  the  flesh  of  the  lamb.  His  words  are,  "  Ye 
shall  eat  it  in  haste.  It  is  the  Lord's  Passover."  Now 
there  is  nothing  more  evident  than  tliat  the  lamb  they  were 
eating,  was  not  the  Lord's  Passover.  The  Lord's  Passover  was 
His  passing  through  the  land  of  Egypt,  and  passing  over  the 
houses  of  the  Israelites  who  had  sprinkled  their  doors  with  the 
blood  of  the  lamb.  The  words  are,  "  Ye  shall  eat  it  in  haste. 
It  is  the  Lord's  Passover.  For  I  will  pass  through  the  land 
of  Egypt  this  night,  and  will  smite  all  the  first-born  in  the  land 
of  Egypt,  both  man  and  beast ;  and  against  all  the  gods  of 
Egypt  I  will  execute  judgment ;  I  am  the  Lord.  And  the 
blood  shall  be  to  you  for  a  token  upon  the  houses  where  ye 
are  ;  and  when  I  see  the  blood,  I  -will  pass  over  you,  and  the 
plague  shall  not  be  upon  you  to  destroy  you,  when  I  smite  the 
land  of  Egypt." — Exodus  xii.  12,  13,  We  thus  learn  that  the 
Lord's  passing  over  the  Israelites  was  one  thing,  and  the  lamb 
that  was  eaten  by  the  Israelites  was  another  thing  ;  that  one 
was  a  fact,  and  the  other  a  memorial  of  that  fact.  And  there- 
fore, when  Moses  says  of  the  lamb,  "  It  is  the  Lord's  Pass- 
over," he  must  mean  that  the  lamb  Avas  the  token  or  memo- 
rial of  the  Lord's  Passover.  He  could  not  possibly  have 
meant  that  the  lamb  which  had  been  roasted  and  which  they 
were  eating,  was  literally,  truly,  substantially  changed  or  tran- 
substantiated into  the  Lord's  passing  over  the  houses  of  the 
Israelites.  He  must  have  meant,  and  the  advocates  of  the 
Church  of  Rome  freely  acknowledge  that  he  must  have  meant, 
that  the  lamb  was  not  literally,  truly,  substantially  the  Passover 
of  the  Lord,  but  only  the  token  or  memorial  of  it.  Though 
Moses  simply  says  : — "  It  is  the  Lord's  Passover,"  yet  his 
words  are  to  be  'nterpreted  as  meaning — "  It  is  the  memorial 
of  the  Lord's  Passover."     We  have  thus,  on  their  own  admis- 


342  EVENINGS    WITH   THE   ROMANISTS. 

sion,  an  example  of  that  mode  of  speaking  wliich  calls  the 
memorial  by  the  name  of  that  of  which  it  is  the  memorial. 

He  saw  the  point  of  this  explanation  in  a  moment.  He 
said  it  seemed  natural  and  reasonable.  And  he  supposed  that 
our  Lord,  in  using  similar  expressions,  did  no  more  than  what 
was  easily  intelligible  to  the  apostles ;  that  is,  He  gave  the 
name  of  the  thing  itself  to  that  which  was  only  its  memorial. 
I  said — he  had  anticipated  my  explanation,  which  was 
founded  on  the  method  in  which  the  Israelites  celebrated  this 
festival  every  year.  This  festival  was  yearly  celebrated  in 
every  family.  The  lamb  having  been  roasted,  the  members 
of  the  household  were  assembled ;  and  the  head  of  the  family 
or  the  master  of  the  household,  standing  at  the  head  of  the 
♦table,  pronounced  the  words — "  This  is  the  Lord's  Passover." 
He  then  gave  it  to  those  that  were  present,  and  they  ate  it 
according  to  the  injunctions  of  Moses.  Now  there  is  nothing 
more  evident  than  that  the  lambs  that  were  thus  eaten  in 
after-years  in  the  land  of  Israel,  were  not  truly,  literally,  sub- 
stantially changed  or  transubstantiated  into  the  Lord's  passing 
over  the  houses  of  the  Israelites,  or  even  into  the  original 
lamb  of  the  Passover  that  had  been  eaten  in  Egypt.  There  is 
nothing  more  evident  than  that  these  lambs  were  desio-ned  as 
tokens  or  memorials  of  that  true  Passover,  which  had  taken 
place  ages  before.  The  advocates  of  the  Church  of  Rome  are 
constrained  to  acknowledge  this.  They  are  constrained  to 
acknowledge  that  in  all  the  families  of  Israel  for  so  many 
hundreds  of  years  it  was  usual  to  say,  "  This  is  the  Lord's 
Passover,"  when  it  was  meant  to  convey — "  This  is  the  memo- 
rial of  the  Lord's  Passover :"  they  are  constrained  to  confess, 
that  as  eveiy  head  of  a  fomily  was  in  the  yearly  habit  of 
solemnly  uttering  these  words,  and  that  as  every  member  of 
all  the  nation  of  the  Israelites  was  in  the  yearly  habit  of  hear- 
ing these  words  solemnly  uttered,  so  there  must  have  been  an 
universal  knowledge  of  this  mode  of  expression,  by  which  the 
memorial  is  called  by  the  name  of  that  of  which  it  is  the 
memoiial. 

Now  the  next  step  in  our  explanation  which  gives  the  full 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION.  343 

and  clear  account  of  our  Lord's  words,  is,  tliat  our  Lord  had 
assembled  with  His  disciples  to  eat  the  Passover ;  to  celebrate 
with  His  disciples  for  the  last  time  this  Passover  which  I  have 
been  describing.  He,  there,  as  the  Master  or  Head  of  those 
disciples,  must  have  pronounced  the  words,  "  This  is  the  Lord's 
Passover."  He  must  have  pronounced  those  words  over  the 
Paschal  lamb.  Not  that  it  really  was  the  Lord's  passing  over 
the  houses  of  the  Israelites ;  not  that  it  was  the  onginal  lamb 
that  was  slain  and  eaten  in  Egypt,  but  that  it  was  the  token 
or  memorial  of  it.  And  thus  our  Lord,  on  that  occasion,  had 
in  the  ears  of  all  his  disciples  used  this  mode  of  expression,  by 
which  the  memorial  of  the  thing  is  called  by  the  name  of  the 
thinof  of  which  it  is  the  memorial.  And  then,  when  imme- 
diately  afterward  He  rescinded  that  feast  of  the  Passover, 
and  substituted  the  feast  of  the  Lord's  Supper  in  its  stead,  it 
was  no  more  than  natural  that  he  should  use  the  same  mode 
of  expression  in  the  new  sacrament  which  was  used  in  the  old 
sacrament ;  it  was  no  more  than  natural  that  he  should  utter 
the  same  form  of  phrase  respecting  the  Christian  sacrament, 
which  only  a  fejv  moments  before  He  had  used  respecting  the 
Jewish  sacrament ;  it  was  no  more  than  natural  that  as  He 
had  the  moment  before  said  of  the  lamb,  "  This  is  the  Pass- 
over," when  He  meant,  "  This  is  the  memorial  of  the  Pass- 
over," so  He  should  now  say  of  the  bread,  "  This  is  My  body 
broken,"  when  He  meant,  "  This  is  the  memorial  of  My  body 
broken." 

He  entered  very  frankly  into  this,  saying  it  was  perfectly 
satisfactory  to  his  mind.  He  guarded  himself  against  being 
misunderstood  as  assenting  to  my  opinion  against  transubstan- 
tiation.  He  was  a  Roman  Catholic,  and  believed  with  his 
Church ;  but,  he  said  that  did  not  prevent  his  seeing  that  I 
had  fairly  explained  the  reason  of  our  Lord  using  that  partic- 
ular form  of  expression.  It  was  one  the  apostles  were  accus- 
tomed to — it  was  one  they  had  just  heard  Him  apply  to  the 
Jewish  sacrament,  so  that  they  felt  no  surprise,  and  could 
make  no  mistake  nor  misunderstand  Him,  when  they  heard 
Him  now  apply  the  same  form  of  expression  to  the  Christian 


344  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

Bacrament.    He  seemed  fully  to  understand  and  appreciate 
this  explanation,  and  thanked  me  warmly  for  it. 

He  said,  however,  he  had  felt  another  difficulty  when  he 
had  listened  to  conversations  on  the  subject.  It  was  not  that 
he  had  any  very  precise  or  clear  views  on  such  points.  He 
left  such  questions  of  theology  to  professional  men — to  the 
clergy — that  Le  was  himself  born  and  educated  a  Roman 
Catholic,  and  intended  to  live  and  die  one,  as  his  family  had 
always  done  before  him — that  lie  hoped  a  man  might  be  a 
good  Catholic  and  a  good  Chi-istian  without  troubling  himself 
about  theological  controversy ;  but,  still,  sometimes,  he  liked 
to  understand  a  subject  when  made  a  topic  of  conversation. 
Now  the  precise  difficulty  on  which  he  ventured  to  ask  my 
opinion  was  this — He  had  once  been  arguing  v^ith  the  confessor 
of  his  family — in  fact,  his  own  confessor — on  this  subject  of 
transubstantiation.  He  had  argued,  of  course,  for  argument's 
sake,  that  a  man  ought  not  to  be  required  to  believe  a  dogma 
so  contrary  to  his  reason — so  contrary  to  his  common  sense,  as 
that  the  little  wafer  or  bread  is  really,  truly,  substantially 
changed  into  God  Himself; — that  this  little  thing,  which  the 
priest's  servant  makes,  and  which  the  priest  blesses,  and  which 
he  holds  in  his  two  fingers,  and  which  he  places  in  my  mouth, 
and  which  I  eat  and  swallow,  is  the  great  God  and  Creator 
Himself !  He  added  that  his  confessor  replied  that  it  was  the 
essence  of  faith — religious  faith — to  believe  what  is  revealed ; 
and  as  reason  leads  often  astray,  and  common  sense  often  mis- 
leads— as  they  both  were  liable  to  great  perversion  ;  so  it  was 
the  province  of  religious  faith  to  believe  the  revelation  of  God 
against  all  the  reason  and  sense  of  fallen  man.  It  was  becom- 
ing a  Christian  to  be  humble,  and  to  have  an  humble  opinion 
of  his  own  judgment;  and  he  should  therefore  bow  to  the 
revelation  of  God.  He  said  the  priest  cited  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity,  as  in  the  same  way  contrary  to  reason  and  com- 
mon sense,  as  it  was  called  ;  but  that  it  was  a  great  inconsist- 
ency in  the  Protestants  that  they  received  the  Trinity  while 
they  rejected  transubstantiation.  They  were  both  alike  con- 
trary to  human  sense  and  reason.     He  concluded  by  asking- 


TRANSUESTANTIATIOK.  345 

me  wlietlier  I  could  resolve  this  difficulty,  as  he  should  like, 
he  said,  laughingly,  to  puzzle  his  coufessor. 

I  said  that  his  confessor  had  given  a  very  fair  answer  to  his 
argument ;  and  that  the  real  difficulty  was,  that  his  argument 
was  defective ;— that  he  had  not  stated  the  objection  against 
transubstantiation  correctly,  and  therefore  left  himself  open  to 
this  answer.  The  defect  of  his  mode  of  stating  his  argument 
was,  that  he  had  said  that  transubstantiation  was  contrary  to 
common  sense  and  reason. 

And  is  not  that  your  opinion  as  a  Protestant?  he  asked  me, 
earnestly.  And  how  else  could  the  argument  be  stated  ?  He 
had  always  thought  that  that  was  the  objection. 

My  reply  to  this  was,  that  his  statement  might  be  very  true 
and  correct,  but  was  liable  to  the  answ'er  his  confessor  had 
given  to  it.  The  true  objection  is,  that  this  dogma  is  contrary 
to  the  senses — not  that  it  is  contrary  to  reason  or  sense,  as  we 
understand  the  phrase,  common  sense,  but  contrary  to  the 
senses — the  hodily  senses,  the  sense  of  sight,  touch,  smell, 
taste.  This  is  the  real  objection,  and  this  has  no  answer.  I 
proposed  to  illustrate  this. 

I  then  narrated  the  well-known  anecdote,  sometimes  ascribed 
to  the  celebrated  Buckingham.  He  was  confined  to  his  couch  ; 
and  as  the  priests  were  very  anxious  to  make  a  convert  of  him, 
he  proposed  to  amuse  himself  at  their  expense.  •  He  therefore 
yielded  to  the  entreaties  of  those  around  him,  and  consented 
to  receive  a  confessor.  This  man  proceeded  to  addi'ess  the 
witty  noble  on  the  subject  of  repentance  and  death  and  the 
sacraments.  But  he  disregarded  all  that  was  said,  in  the  most 
sfudied  manner;  affecting  a  sort  of  wandering  or  imbecility 
of  mind.  He  held  a  cork  in  his  hand,  spoke  of  it  as  his  fav- 
orite horse,  patted  its  sides,  and  stroked  its  mane,  till  the  con- 
fessor, pitying  the  state  of  his  mind,  spoke  to  him  on  the  sub- 
ject. He  assured  him  it  was  not  his  horse,  but  only  a  cork. 
The  other  insisted  it  was  indeed  his  horse,  and  begged  him  to 
observe  its  noble  neck,  its  beautiful  head,  its  flowing  mane,  its 
finely-formed  limbs,  its  splendid  action  !  Still  the  good  chap- 
lain persevered  and  argued  with  him,  to  the  effect  that  if  he 

15* 


346  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

would  only  looL  at  it,  be  might  see  it  was  not  like  a  horse, 
but  only  a  cork — that  if  he  would  only  feel  it,  he  might  per- 
ceive it  was  not  a  horse,  but  only  a  cork — that  if  he  would 
smel:  it,  he  might  smell  that  it  was  not  a  horse,  but  only  a 
cork — that  if  he  would  taste  it,  he  might  at  once  perceive  it 
did  not  taste  like  a  horse,  but  only  a  cork.  The  other  seemed 
struck  by  this  process  of  argument,  and  gave  way,  confessing 
he  might  have  been  deceived  by  some  one  who  had  told  him 
it  was  his  horse,  and  whom  he  had  hastily  believed  without 
due  consideration.  He  now  was  convinced  it  was  only  a  cork. 
The  confessor  having  succeeded  thus  far  continued  his  religious 
exhortations,  and  in  the  end,  proposed  administering  to  him 
the  Holy  Sacrament,  to  which  he  at  once  assented.  Every 
thing  was  soon  arranged ;  and  the  confessor  gave  him  the 
consecrated  host.  He  asked  him  what  it  was  ?  The  confessor 
answered  it  was  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ — it  was  the  body  of 
God.  This,  exclaimed  the  merry  wit,  in  affected  astonishment, 
this  Jesus  Christ — this  the  body  of  God  !  It  is  only  a  little 
wafer  of  flour  and  water  !  The  good  chaplain  was  shocked, 
and  assured  him  that  it  was  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord. 
The  other  then  proceeded  to  argue  with  him,  and  said,  that  he 
must  be  under  some  mental  hallucination,  for  if  he  would  look 
at  it  he  might  see  it  was  not  like  Jesus  Christ,  but  only  a 
Avafer — that  if  would  feel  it,  he  might  perceive  by  the  touch 
that  it  was  not  hke  Jesus  Christ,  but  only  a  wafer — that  if  he 
would  taste  it,  he  would  perceive  that  it  was  not  like  Jesus 
Christ,  but  was  only  a  little  wafer — that  if  he  would  smell  it, 
he  would  at  once  find  that  it  was  not  like  Jesus  Christ,  but 
was  only  a  httle  piece  of  flour  and  water.  And  he  assured  the 
confessor  that  there  could  be  no  doubt  that  a  man  must  be 
out  of  his  senses  who  believed  a  thing  so  contrary  to  his 
senses.     The  confessor  could  only  withdraw  in  despair. 

My  Roman  Catholic  acquaintance  was  exceedingly  amused 
at  this  anecdote.  He  thoroughly  enjoyed  it ;  and  I  suspected, 
from  what  he  said,  that  he  meant  to  try  its  effects  on  his 
family  confessor  on  the  next  occasion  of  a  controversy  with 
him.     He  mentioned  a  few  droll  incidents  which  had  occurred 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION.  347 

in  the  history  of  his  family,  connected  with  religious  questions, 
and  it  was  some  time  before  I  was  able  to  bring  him  back  to 
the  object  I  had  in  view. 

I  reminded  him  that  in  the  anecdote  of  the  witty  Bucking- 
ham and  the  simple  confessor,  the  former  never  alluded  to 
reason  or  common  sense — had  never  argued  that  transubstan- 
tiation  was  impossible  or  contrary  to  reason  or  common  sense. 
If  he  had  done  so  he  could  have  been  answered  by  some  pla- 
titudes and  common-places  about  faith  and  humility  and  sub- 
mission of  judgment,  and  about  the  pride  of  reason  and  the 
humility  of  faith ;  and  all  that  kind  of  thing,  which,  though 
easily  answered,  takes  a  longer  time  to  answer  than  it  deserves. 
He  was  a  man  too  keen  for  such  a  mistake ;  he,  therefore, 
assailed  the  doctrine  as  contrary  to  the  senses,  that  is,  to  the 
bodily  senses,  to  the  sense  of  sight,  the  sense  of  touch,  the 
sense  of  taste,  the  sense  of  smell.  The  remaining  sense,  that 
of  hearing,  does  not  bear  upon  it.  This  is  the  true  objection — 
we  taste  the  consecrated  elements,  and  we  find  they  are  pre- 
cisely the  same  they  were  before  consecration  ;  they  taste  not 
like  Jesus  Christ,  but  simply  as  bread  and  wine.  We  see 
them  and  observe  they  are  exactly  the  same  they  were  before ; 
we  see  they  are  not  like  Jesus  Christ,  but  merely  bread  and 
wine  as  before.  And  it  is  the  same  with  the  sense  of  touch 
and  the  sense  of  smell.  The  objection  thus  is,  that  this  dogma 
is  contrary  to  the  bodily  senses.  And  when  stated  in  this 
way,  it  has  the  invaluable  advantage  that  it  can  not  be 
answered,  as  he  himself  had  been  answered  by  his  family  con- 
fessor, namely,  by  alluding  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and 
arguing  that  it  too  is  a  mystery  contrary  to  reason  and  com- 
mon sense,  as  much  as  transubstantiation.  My  objection,  I 
said,  was  not  liable  to  this,  for  it  refers  only  to  the  bodily 
senses  ;  and  I  can  therefore  say  that  however  the  Trinity  may 
be  above  and  beyond  these,  it  certainly  is  not  contrary  to 
them.  To  which  of  our  bodily  senses  is  the  Trinity  contrary  ? 
sight — smell — hearing — taste — feeling  ?  It  is  altogether  above 
and  beyond  their  reach  or  range,  and  can  not  be  tested  by 
them,  it  can  not  be  tried  by  them.     Whereas — and  here  is  the 


848  EVENINGS    WITH   THE    ROMANISTS. 

grand  difference  between  it  and  transubstantiation — tlie  latter 
is  properly,  and  altogether  within  reach  of  all  our  senses,  and 
therefore  may  be  tried  and  tested  by  them,  and  when  so  tried 
and  tested,  it  is  found  contrary  to  the  bodily  senses.  There 
is  no  parallel  between  them ;  the  Trinity  is  beyond  their 
reach,  and  can  not  be  tested  by  them.  Transubstantiation  is 
properly  within  their  sphere,  and  is  rejected  by  them. 

He  -was  thoroughly  pleased  with  this  argument,  at  least  he 
so  expressed  himself;  and  he  was  one  who  seemed  to  enter  on 
such  subjects  wilh  an  intellectual  pleasure  rather  than  a  religious 
feeling.  It  seemed  to  me  that  it  touched,  as  it  were,  a  nerve 
in  his  intellectual  system.  He  asked  me  several  questions,  so 
as  to  make  himself  perfectly  master  of  the  argument;  and  he 
said  he  thought  it  impossible  to  answer ;  and  that  he  could 
conceive  no  reply  except  one  that  would  impeach  the  certainty 
of  the  senses. 

I  stated,  that  this  very  objection  had  been  made ;  but  that 
the  reply  was  obvious,  and  all  was  the  more  cogent,  because 
it  was  practical.  Although  perhaps  some  one  of  the  senses 
may  be  mistaken  under  particular  circumstances,  when  the 
other  senses  are  brought  to  assist  it,  they  can  not  be  mistaken. 
If  we  suppose  an  object  at  a  distance  so  great  as  that  our  sight 
may  be  mistaken,  and  then  bring  it  so  near  as  that  we  can 
feel  it,  and  examine  it  by  our  sight,-  and  also  by  our  other 
senses — if  we  suppose  an  apple  at  such  a  distance  that  we  can 
not  see  clearly  whether  it  be  an  apple  or  an  orange,  yet,  when 
bringing  it  near,  we  examine  it  by  our  sight,  and  see  it  is  an 
apple  and  not  an  orange ;  and  then  feel  it,  and  then  smell  it, 
and  then  taste  it,  and  then  find  that  each  sense  proves  it  an 
apple,  and  not  an  orange,  we  then  have  the  strongest  evidence 
that  can  be  submitted  to  the  human  mind.  And  when,  in 
like  manner,  the  consecrated  bread  or  wine  is  before  us,  and 
we  look  on  it,  and  see  that  it  does  not  look  like  Jesus  Christ, 
but  only  like  bread  and  wine ;  when  next  we  handle  it,  and 
find  that  it  does  not  feel  like  Jesus  Christ ;  when  next  we  taste 
it,  and  find  that  it  does  not  taste  Hke  Jesus  Christ;  when 
again  we  smell  it,  and  find  that  it  does  not  smell  like  Jesus 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION.  349 

Christ,  but  only  like  bread  and  wine :  v/hen  thus  we  have 
brought  it  to  the  test  of  four  senses,  and  find  it  still  the  same 
thing,  we  feel  that  we  have  the  strongest  evidence  that  God 
can  give  or  man  receive,  that  there  is  uo  truth  in  Transub- 
stantiation,  for  that  the  bread  and  wine  do,  after  consecration, 
retain  the  very  same  substance  of  bread  and  wine  as  before 
consecration. 

My  Roman  Catholic  companion  seemed  frank  and  candid. 
He  was  disposed  to  admit  the  force  of  an  argument  opposed 
to  his  own  opinions,  although  he  found  himself  unable  to  yield 
to  it.  I  felt  that  I  ought  not  to  press  the  subject  more,  as  he 
suggested  no  further  difficulty. 

There  are,  however,  some  members  of  the  Church  of  Rome 
who  feel  a  difiiculty  in  submitting  to  the  evidence  of  the 
bodily  senses.  When  I  have  met  such  persons,  I  have  en- 
deavored to  press  on  them  some  of  the  three  following  con- 
siderations : — 

In  the  first  place,  our  Lord  appeals  to  them  as  the  last  and 
most  decisive  court  of  appeal  upon  the  greatest  of  all  truths. 
After  His  resurrection.  He  appealed  to  His  disciples,  and  "  He 
said  unto  them,  Why  are  ye  troubled  ?  and  why  do  thoughts 
arise  in  your  hearts  ?  Behold  My  hands  and  My  feet,  that  it 
is  I  Myself :  handle  Me,  and  see  ;  for  a  spirit  hath  not  flesh 
and  bones,  as  ye  see  Me  have.  And  when  He  had  thus 
spoken,  He  showed  them  His  hands  and  His  feet." — Luke 
xxiv.  38-40.  Here  was  a  direct  appeal  to  their  senses  of  see- 
ing and  feeling.  Again  ;  we  read,  that  when  Thomas  came 
and  would  not  believe  the  accounts  he  heard,  "Jesus  came 
and  said  unto  Thomas,  reach  hither  thy  finger,  and  behold 
Illy  hands ;  and  reach  hither  thy  hand,  and  thrust  it  into  My 
side  :  and  be  not  faithless,  but  believing." — John  xx.  27.  This 
was  a  direct  appeal  to  the  senses,  as  if  they  were  the  most 
certain  evidence  of  the  truth.  We  say,  the  most  certain  evi- 
dence ;  and  we  are  justified  in  this,  because  the  evidence  is 
expressly  stated  in  Holy  Sci'ipture  to  be  infallible.  We  refer 
to  the  words  which  open  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  :  "  The 
former  treatise  have  I  made,  0  Theophilus,  of  all  that  Jesus 


350  EVENINGS   WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

began  both  to  do  aucl  to  teach,  until  the  day  in  which  He  was 
taken  up,  after  that  He  through  the  Holy  Ghost  had  given 
commandment  unto  the  apostles  whom  He  had  chosen :  to 
whom  also  He  showed  Himf^elf  alive  after  His  passion  by 
many  infallible  proofs,  being  seen  of  them  forty  days,  and 
speaking  of  the  things  pertaining  to  the  kingdom  of  God." — 
Acts  i.  1-3.  It  is  here  stated,  that  our  Lord  gave  infallible 
proof  of  His  resurrection  ;  and  that  infallible  proof  was  the 
fcvct  that  the  sense  of  hearing  and  the  sense  of  seeing^  which 
the  disciples  enjoyed,  and  which  examined  His  risen  body,  at- 
tested His  resurrection.  This  is  the  only  place  in  the  Holy 
Scripture,  in  which  infaUlbility  is  mentioned ;  and  it  is  not  a 
little  remarkable  that  it  is  applied  to  the  evidence  of  the 
bodily  senses ;  so  that  we  have  the  "  infallible"  evidence  of 
our  senses  against  the  doctrine  of  Transubstantiation. 

In  the  second  place,  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  not  only 
in  the  matter  of  the  resurrection,  but  also  in  every  thing  else, 
it  has  pleased  God  to  make  His  appeal  to  our  senses.  If  He 
has  proved  the  mission  of  His  prophets  and  apostles  by  mir- 
acles, it  must  be  felt  that  He  has  appealed  to  our  senses.  For 
what  is  a  miracle  but  an  appeal  to  our  senses  ?  It  is  an  ap- 
peal to  the  sense  of  sight,  by  which  we  see  a  manifest  setting 
aside  the  course  of  nature.  What  is  the  message  of  the  Gos- 
pel, whether  written  or  preached,  but  an  appeal  to  our  sight, 
by  which  we  read  it ;  or  an  appeal  to  our  hearing,  by  which 
we  hear  it  ?  What  Avere  the  words  of  Jesus,  but  an  aj^peal 
to  our  hearing  ?  and  what  were  the  miracles  of  Jesus,  but  an 
appeal  to  our  seeing?  If  God  displayed  His  hatred  of  sin  by 
destroying  the  wdiole  world  by  a  deluge  of  waters,  or  by  pro- 
claiming His  law  amid  the  thunders  and  lightnings  of  Sinai : 
or  if  God  displayed  His  love  of  His  people,  by  sending  the 
prophets  to  preach  to  us,  or  by  founding  His  Church  in  the 
midst  of  us,  or  by  giving  His  Son  to  die  for  us,  He  has  invari- 
ably made  that  display,  whether  of  hatred  or  love,  by  an  ap- 
peal to  our  senses.  And  as  every  prophecy  that  was  deliv- 
ered, and  every  command  that  was  given,  and  every  doctrine 
that  was  taught,  and  every  miracle  that  was  wrought,  was  an 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION.  351 

appeal  to  the  senses  of  seeing,  or  of  hearing,  or  of  feeHng  ;  so 
we  have  the  authority  of  Heaven's  example  for  making  oui 
bodily  senses  the  great  and  final  court  of  appeal. 

In  the  third  place,  it  is  a  point  admitted  by  all  writers  on 
the  nature  of  human  knowledge — it  is  a  point  clearly  estab- 
lished by  Locke  in  his  Essay  on  the  Human  Understanding, 
that  all  the  knowledge  we  possess  must  be  through  the  me- 
dium of  the  bodily  senses.  If  we  have  knowledge  of  past  his- 
tory, that  knowledge  has  reached  us  through  books  which 
we  have  read ;  or  in  other  words,  through  our  sense  of  sight 
by  which  we  have  read  those  books.  If  we  have  knowledge 
of  the  transactions  of  other  lands,  not  by  books  nor  by  sight, 
but  by  the  narration  of  others,  that  knowledge  reaches  us 
through  the  sense  of  hearing,  by  which  we  hear  those  narra- 
tions. There  are  other  departments  of  knowledge,  which  we 
obtain  through  the  channel  of  the  other  senses.  All  our 
pleasures  and  our  pains — all  our  joys  and  our  sorrows — are 
connected  with  those  things  that  have  reached  us  through 
one  or  the  other  of  the  senses.  And  this  is  so  universal,  that 
we  know  nothing,  and  can  know  nothing,  unless  we  hear  it, 
or  see  it,  or  feel  it,  or  taste  it,  or  smell  it.  So  universal  is 
this  that  the  advocates  of  the  Church  of  Rome  always  make 
their  own  appeal  to  our  senses ;  for  however  they  are  disposed 
to  throw  a  doubt  on  their  evidence  on  this  question  of  Tran- 
substantiation,  yet  they  adduce  no  proof  in  its  support,  except 
an  appeal  to  the  senses.  They  point  to  certain  words  in  the 
Scriptures.  And  what  is  this,  but  an  appeal  to  our  sense  of 
sight  ?  And  if  our  sense  of  sight,  when  examining  the  bread, 
may  be,  as  they  assert,  so  mistaken  that  we  only  see  it  as 
bread  when  really  it  is  Christ,  then  our  sense  of  sight,  when 
examining  the  words  of  Scripture,  may  in  like  manner  be  so 
mistaken,  as  that  we  only  see  one  thing,  when  the  words  are 
really  something  else.  If  our  sense  of  sight  is  competent  to 
determine  without  doubt  that  these  words  are  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, then  our  sense  of  sight  is  equally  competent  to  deter- 
mine without  doubt  whether  the  consecrated  bread  be  really 
bread  or  really  Christ.  ' 


352  EVENINGS    WITH   THE    ROMANISTS. 

I  have  ever  found  these  three  consiJerations  sufficient  to 
satisfy  cahn  and  earnest  and  lionest  inquii'ers,  that  our  hodily 
senses  are  not  to  be  set  aside,  or  put  in  abeyance  upon  this 
question.  But  all  the  advocates  of  Romanism  are  not  of  this 
class ;  and  indeed  they  have  felt  the  force  of  the  argument, 
as  derived  from  the  bodily  senses  so  much  that  they  have  i]i- 
vented  a  new  system  of  philosophy  in  order  to  counteract  it. 
They  teach  that  the  appearance  and  the  taste  and  the  smell 
and  the  feeling  of  the  consecrated  bread,  are  only  accidents 
and  not  realities ;  that  all  these  may  be  there,  and  yet  the 
substance  not  there ;  that  all  these  properties  and  peculiarities 
of  bread  may  be  there,  and  yet  something  else,  instead  of  the 
bread,  be  there  all  tlie  while ;  that  the  size  and  the  color  and 
the  shajie  and  every  other  property  characteristic  of  various 
substances,  does  not  really  belong  to  them — that  these  things 
are  only  a  species  of  phantoms,  a  species  of  hollow  nothing- 
ness in  themselves,  and  yet  contain  something  altogether  dif- 
ferent from  what  they  seem  to  contain.  The  advocates  of  the 
Church  of  Rome  have  therefore  been  compelled  to  invent  a 
system  of  philosophy  peculiar  to  themselves,  and  according 
to  this  2:)hilosophy  an  object  is  round  and  yet  not_  round,  and 
it  is  square  and  yet  not  square,  and  it  is  long  and  yet  not  long, 
and  it  is  white  and  yet  not  white  ;  but  white  may  be  black, 
and  black  may  be  white,  for  we  are  not  to  judge  that  it  is 
white  because  it  looks  white,  or  that  it  is  black  because  it 
looks  black,  for  that  this  color  is  only  an  accident  or  appear- 
ance, and  there  is  really  something  else  of  a  different  color 
under  this  accident  or  appearance.  We  are  not  to  call  the 
snow  white ;  nor  the  grass  green,  nor  the  sky  blue,  for  that 
these  are  only  accidents  or  appearances,  distinct  from  the 
realities,  and  so  distinct  that  it  may  be  the  snow  is  really 
black,  though  it  looks  white,  and  the  grass  crimson,  though  it 
looks  green,  and  the  sky  scarlet,  though  it  looks  blue.  It 
would  be  obviously  impossible,  within  the  limits  of  this  paper, 
to  expose  this  system  of  philosophy  as  fully  as  I  might;  but 
at  least  I  may  ask,  if  all  these  accidents  of  the  consecrated 
bread  are  really  nothing  else  than  pliantoms  and  shadowy. and 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION.  353 

unreal  nothings,  how  comes  it  to  pass  that  the  consecrated 
bread,  when  kept  for  awhile,  begins  to  mokler  and  to  fill  with 
worms  and  to  be  eaten  by  worms,  and  to  vanish  away  by  the 
process  of  decay,  just  like  all  real  substances  ?  It  is  evident, 
that  unreal  phantoms  and  shadowy  nothings  could  not  pro- 
duce worms  and  feed  worms.  And  then,  when  all  is  decaying 
away,  what,  I  ask,  becomes  of  Jesus  Christ,  who  was  sup- 
posed to  be  the  real  substance  under  those  accidents  ?  Has 
He  become  moldy  ?  Has  He  become  corrupt ;  contrary  to 
the  word,  "  Thou  wilt  not  suffer  Thy  Holy  One  to  see  corrup- 
tion ?"  Has  He  produced  worms  ?  Have  the  worms  been 
eating  our  Saviour  and  our  God  ?  And  when  all  appearances 
or  accidents  are  vanished  away,  what  becomes  of  Him,  wlio 
is  supposed  to  be  the  real  substance  under  them  ?  Has  He 
too  vanished  away  ?  They  tell  us  that  as  soon  as  the  conse- 
crated bread  begins  to  decay — as  soon  as  the  worms  appear, 
then  Jesus  Christ  departs,  and  the  annihilated  bread  comes 
back  again,  or  the  whole  thing  is  transubstantiated  back  again 
into  bread !  There  is  thus  a  double  transubstantiation  !  One 
is  accomplished  with  the  words  of  consecration,  but  the  other 
is  accomplished  without  these  or  any  words  of  consecration. 
In  one,  the  bread  is  transubstantiated  into  Jesus  Christ,  at  the 
words  of  the  priests  ;  in  the  other,  Jesus  Clirist  is  transubstan- 
tiated back  again  into  bread,  at  the  sight  of  the  worms  ! 


THAN  SUBSTANTIA! ION. —  III. 

A  Scene  at  the  Killeries — An  Irish  Reader  and  a  Scapularian — The  use  of  Ridicule 
Iq  Controversy  dangerous — The  Sin  of  exposing  Religion  and  religious  things  to 
ScoflBng — -An  Anecdote  respecting  Maynooth — This  Sin  charged  against  the 
Church  of  Rome — In  the  Rubrics,  De  Defectibus,  in  the  Roman  Missal — Again 
in  her  Views  of  the  Institution  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

Those  who  are  acquainted  with  tlie  West  of  Ireland — wjth 
the  district  in  which  so  many  conversions  from  the  Church  of 
Rome  have  lately  taken  place — will  remember  the  Killeries. 
An  arm  of  the  sea,  extremly  narrow  but  of  great  extent,  winds 
its  way  among  the  mountains  forming  what  the  Norwegians 
call  a  fiord.  It  is  a  scene  of  great  wildness,  but  of  beauty  and 
grandeur  also. 

This  district,  about  twenty-five  years  ago,  was  scarcely 
known.  There  had  been  no  roads  that  could  be  traversed 
except  on  wild  ponies,  until  the  government  made  those  noble 
roads  that  have  now  opened  the  district.  And  for  a  very 
long  period  after  their  completion,  there  were  few  indeed  who 
had  love  enough  for  the  wild  and  sublime  in  nature,  to  visit 
scenes  where  it  was  thought  impossible  to  obtain  any  accom- 
modation. I  had  an  intense  love  for  such  scenery.  The 
savage  wildness  of  the  place — the  perfect  solitude  that  charac- 
terized it — the  fine  reach  of  the  sea,  sweeping  in  from  the 
broad  Atlantic — the  height  and  grandeur  of  the  mountains — 
and  the  deep  and  intense  silence  that  sometimes  pervaded 
mountain,  valley,  and  water,  gave  to  the  scene  an  inexpressible 
charm.  At  least  it  was  so  to  my  feeling,  and  frequently  I  used 
to  visit  it.  I  often  rode  over  a  distance  of  about  fourteen  miles 
to  Maam,  where  the  government  engineer  had  built  a  small 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION.  355 

house,  which  on  his  departure  was  converted  into  a  little  inn. 
There  I  secured  a  bed  and  stabled  my  horse,  and  then  pro- 
ceeded on  foot  some  eight  or  nine  miles  further  to  the  Kill- 
eries. 

One  day  while  here,  I  observed  a  fishing-boat  with  some 
half-a-dozen  men  laying  a  net  for  the  salmon.  They  used  to 
ascend  this  fiord  in  great  numbers.  I  was  looking  at  them 
for  some  time  from  a  high  rock  far  above  the  shore,  and  I 
noticed  two  other  men  seated  at  some  distance,  apparently  in 
very  earnest  conversation.  They  had  books  in  their  hands. 
I  had  not  much  time  to  indulge  in  curiosity  as  to  their  books 
or  their  conversation,  thougli  I  had  my  suspicions  as  to  the 
nature  of  both,  when  I  saw  the  fishermen  preparing  to  draw 
their  nets.  They  did  this  usually  at  a  certain  state  of  the  tide, 
when  they  saw  the  salmon  rise.  It  seemed  to  me  as  if  the 
nets  checked  the  advance  of  the  fish,  which  immediately  rose 
to  the  surface  to  advance  up  the  bay ;  upon  this  the  fishermen 
drew  the  nets,  and  as  I  descended  to  witness  this,  I  reckoned 
nearly  forty  salmon,  netted  at  a  single  haul !  I  spoke  to  the 
fishermen,  and  to  the  cadgers  with  httle  ragged  ponies  and 
donkeys,  with  panniers,  who  purchased  the  fish  at  about  one 
penny  the  pound,  and  immediately  proceeded  further  inland 
to  obtain  a  market  for  it.  They  had  from  fifteen  to  twenty 
miles  to  travel,  before  they  could  have  the  slightest  prospect 
of  selling  a  single  fish. 

When  leaving  this  busy  little  scene  of  fishing,  I  observed 
the  two  men  whom  I  had  before  noticed  in  conversation. 
They  knew  who  I  was,  and  addressed  me  with  the  usual 
courtesy  of  the  people.  I  found  that  one  of  them  was  an 
Irish  reader,  that  is,  one  who  taught  the  Irish  language,  and 
who  was  in  the  habit  of  reading  the  Holy  Scriptures  in  Irish 
in  the  cottages  upon  the  mountain.  The  other  was  a  confra- 
ternity man,  a  very  zealous  and  active  Roman  Catholic,  whose 
knowledge  of  Latin  had  given  him  a  great  reputation  among 
the  peasantry.  They  had  been  engaged  in  an  animated  though 
friendly  controversy. 

The  Roman  Catholic  appealed  to  me  whether  it  was  right 


356  EVENINGS   "WITH   THE    ROMANISTS. 

to  tave  recourse  to  ridicule  on  so  serious  a  subject — tBat 
there  was  notliing  held  iu  the  Church  of  Rome  in  so  great  and 
profound  behef  and  reverence  as  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy 
Sacrament.  They  believed  that  it  was  very  Jesus  Christ — 
that  it  was  God  himself — that  after  the  holy  words  of  the 
priest  the  conversion  or  change  took  place,  so  that  it  was  no 
longer  the  wafer  or  bread,  but  the  God-man  Jesus  Christ  him- 
self— that  this  was  their  belief,  and  that  therefore  they  looked 
on  it  with  every  possible  reverence.  Now  he  complained  that 
his  companion  had  been  arguing  against  this  doctrine,  in  a  way 
that  turned  it  into  ridicule,  so  as  greatly  to  distress  and  pain 
his  feelings,  for  that  the  subject  was  too  grave  and  solemn  for 
ridicule,  and  he  felt  it  touched  his  religion  too  closely  for 
him  to  like  it.  He  did  not,  and  would  not,  show  anger 
toward  his  companion,  whom  he  very  much  respected  and 
liked  because  he  was  a  good  man  and  could  talk  well,  but  he 
did  not  like  his  religion  to  be  ridiculed,  and  appealed  to  me 
whether  it  was  right. 

It  was  apparent  from  the  radiant  countenance  of  one  and 
the  annoyed  expression  in  the  face  of  the  other,  that  some 
hard  hitting  had  passed  between  them,  more  to  the  satisfaction 
of  the  Protestant  than  of  his  Romanist  friend. 

I  said,  however,  that  ridicule  was  a  very  effective,  but  very 
often  a  dangerous  weapon.  It  sometimes,  like  the  knife  of  the 
operator,  by  cutting  too  deeply,  not  only  cut  away  a  cancer, 
but  even  life  itself.  And  thus  often  in  throwing  ridicule  on  a 
given  dogma,  there  is  danger  of  the  sense  of  the  ridiculous 
going  too  deep — adhering  to  the  subject  itself  independent  of 
the  dogma,  and  thus  it  sometimes  tends  to  a  spirit  of  skeptic- 
ism and  infidelity.  Such  a  weapon,  therefore,  should  be  used 
only  with  extreme  caution  ;  but  it  was  clear  that  it  might 
sometimes  be  used,  and  I  showed  that  by  reference  to  1  Kings 
xviii.  27,  where  the  prophet  of  God  pours  ridicule  upon  the 
gods  of  the  heathen,  "  Elijah  mocked  them  and  said.  Cry 
aloud  :  for  he  is  a  god  ;  either  he  is  talking,  or  he  is  pursu- 
ing, or  he  is  in  a  journey,  or  peradventure  he  is  asleep,  and 
must  be  awaked  !"    Here  was  ridicule.    The  thing,  therefore, 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION.  357 

is  admissible,  tliougli  certmuly  it  should  be  very  seldom,  very 
sparingly,  and  very  cautiously  used,  both  for  the  sake  of  the 
subject  itself,  which  is  sacred,  and  for  the  sake  of  others, 
whose  feelings  may  be  wounded  by  it.  I  added  that  in  this 
case,  the  fault  was  not  in  the  prophet  who  ridiculed  these 
absurd  notions  about  the  gods  of  the  heathen,  but  in  the 
heathen  themselves,  who  invented  notions  so  essentially  ridic- 
ulous. If  we  would  avoid  ridicule,  our  truest  course  is  not  to 
make  ourselves  ridiculous. 

The  Scripture-reader  said  very  kindly  that  he  had  never 
ridiculed  the  religion  of  his  fi'iend — that  he  was  detailing  an 
anecdote  and  narrating  what  others  had  done,  and  that  his 
friend  had  supposed  he  was  ridiculing  the  Church  of  Rome. 
It  was  altogether  a  mistake  so  far  as  he  was  concei'ued.  He 
then  mentioned  that  he  was  narrating  what  he  had  heard 
some  years  before,  and  which  was  called  to  mind  by  seeing  a 
missal  in  the  hand  of  his  companion.  Some  gentlemen,  of 
whom  one  had  been  a  Roman  Catholic,  educated  at  Maynooth, 
but  who  afterward  became  a  Protestant,  were  visiting  the  col- 
lege. They  took  with  them  a  very  small,  short  tract,  printed 
on  a  single  fly-leaf.  This  tract  contained  certain  extracts  ft'om 
the  missal  and  a  few  questions  on  each  extract.  These  ex- 
tracts were  directions  about  the  consecrated  host  in  case  a 
mouse  should  have  eaten  it,  or  the  winds  carried  it  away,  or  a 
dog  run  away  with  it,  or  a  communicant  vomited  it ;  and  the 
questions  were  as  to  whether  they  really  believed  with  the 
Church  of  Rome,  that  if  the  consecrated  host  was  God  him- 
self, He  could  not  save  himself  from  a  mouse,  or  the  wind,  or 
a  dog,  or  the  sickness  of  a  communicant  ?  He  added,  that  he 
knew  nothing  of  the  facts,  but  that  he  heard  that  the  three 
gentlemen  brought  a  number  of  these  to  the  College  of  May- 
nooth, and  as  they  went  over  it,  they  thrust  them  into  every 
little  corner  or  curious  hole — on  every  book-shelf,  or  in  eveiy 
bed,  and  so  left  the  college.  It  was  said  sometime  after,  that 
several  of  the  students  were  expelled  for  heresy,  and  it  was 
believed  that  they  had  found  these  papers,  and  were  led  to 
reject  a  belief  in  Transubstantiation.    He  concluded  by  saying 


368  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

that  lie  had  only  mentioned  this  anecdote,  and  seeing  his  com- 
panion with  a  missal  ia  his  hand,  and  knowing  that  he  under- 
stood Latin,  he  had  asked  him  to  see  whether  these  things 
were  really  in  the  Roman  Missal. 

This  gave  a  turn  to  our  conversation,  when  I  remarked  that 
wherever  the  fault  was,  it  certainly  was  not  with  him,  who 
had  only  narrated  the  conduct  of  others.  Our  Roman  Cath- 
olic friend  acknowledged  this,  but  added,  that  it  was  very 
wrong  to  throw  any  ridicule  on  the  religion  of  others  ;  and  es- 
pecially to  invent  such  calumnies  against  the  most  sacred  of 
all  the  doctrines  of  the  Church.  There  was  nothing  of  the 
kind  in  the  Roman  Missal,  or  he  would  reject  them  himself  as 
much  as  any  one  in  the  w^orld. 

I  then  stated  that  there  was  a  sacredness,  a  religiousness,  on 
such  subjects  that  ought  to  remove  them  beyond  the  pale  of 
ridicide,  but  that  often  it  was  diflBcult  to  sjjeak  of  some  relig- 
ions, without  a  sense  of  the  ridiculous.  lu  some  countries,  as 
in  parts  of  Africa,  when  a  man  means  to  pray  from  his  inner- 
most soul  he  writes  his  prayer  upon  paper,  and  then  swallows 
it,  thinking  it  then  a  prayer  in  his  teart !  In  other  lands,  as 
in  Thibet,  when  a  man  would  pray  much,  he  writes  his  prayer 
on  paper,  and  places  it  in  a  rotatory  machine,  and  supposes 
that  his  prayer  is  multiplied  by  every  turn  of  the  wheel,  and 
that  he  becomes  thus  a  man  of  many  prayers  !  Practices  like 
these  throw  an  air  of  the  absurd  and  ridiculous  upon  religion, 
and  tend  to  degrade  it  in  the  eyes  of  thinking  men.  Now  the 
sin  here  would  not  be  in  the  men,  whose  sense  of  the  ridicu- 
lous is  excited  by  such  absurdities.  The  sin — and  it  is  a  great 
sin — is  with  those  who  invest  religion  with  a&.essories  that 
are  ridiculous  or  absurd. 

But,  said  the  Roman  Catholic,  these  are  heathenish  religions, 
and  not  real  religion  at  all ;  and  there  is  nothing  in  the  Church 
of  Rome  that  could  excite  the  ridicule  of  any. 

I  stated  quietly  and  very  gently  to  him,  that  that  was  the 
very  question  between  him  and  his  companion — that  his  com- 
panion had  heard  that  there  were  such  things  in  the  Roman 
Missal,  and  had  asked  him  to  read  and  inform  him  whether  it 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION.  359 

indeed  was  so.  N'ow,  I  added,  it  is  a  sad  and  painful  fact,  that 
all  he  has  stated  is  really  in  the  Roman  Missal,  and  surely 
you  will  allow  that  if  the  Church  of  Rome  has  printed  such 
things  in  her  Missal,  it  is  she  who  is  to  bear  the  blame  for  in- 
serting things  so  ridiculous  and  absurd — rather  than  those  who 
expose  them. 

He  said  with  great  frankness,  that  if  he  thought  such  things 
were  in  the  Missal,  he  would  fling  it  into  the  sea  from  that 
spot  where  we  then  stood,  and  never  would  blame  any  man 
for  ridiculing  things  so  deserving  of  ridicule.  He  spoke  with 
evident  earnestness. 

I  then  asked  him  for  the  Missal.  He  gave  it  to  me  at  once, 
and  opening  the  rubrics  respecting  the  defects  de  defectibus 
and  other  matters,  I  asked  him  to  read  with  me,  as  he  under- 
stood Latin.     I  then  read  as  follows — 

"  If  the  consecrated  host  disappear  either  by  an  accident  or 
by  the  wind,  or  by  a  miracle,  or  by  having  been  eaten  by  any 
animal,  and  can  not  be  found,  then  let  another  host  be  conse- 
crated." 

Now  here,  I  remarked,  you  believe  that  the  consecrated  Host 
is  no  longer  bread,  but  Jesus  Christ  Himself — God  Himself,  no 
longer  the  creature,  but  the  Creator,  no  longer  bread  but  God  ; 
and  yet  here  the  Church  of  Rome  supposes  the  marvelous  ab- 
surdity of  Jesus  Christ — may  God  pardon  the  thought — 
being  mislaid  and  lost  by  an  accident ! — carried  away  by  the 
wind  !  and  devoured  by  some  animal ! 

I  must  do  the  man  the  justice,  to  say  that  he  seemed 
shocked  at  this.  I  made  him  read  it  for  himself,  and  he 
seemed  more  shocked  than  before.  I  then  directed  his  atten- 
tion to  another  rubric. 

"  If  a  spider,  or  a  fly,  or  something  else  have  fallen  into  the 
chaUce  before  consecration,  let  him  throw  the  wine  into  a 
suitable  place,  and  place  other  wine  in  the  chalice  ;  let  him 
mix  a  little  water,  otler  it  as  above,  and  continue  the  Mass.  If 
a  fly  or  something  of  this  kind  have  fallen  after  consecration^ 
and  nausea  arise  in  the  priest,  let  him  take  it  out,  and  wash  it 
with  wine;  at  the  end  of  the  Mass,  let  him  hum  it,  and  let 


360  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

the  combustion  and  lotion  of  tliis  kind  be  thrown  into  the  sac- 
raiium.  But  if  he  has  no  nausea  nor  fear  of  any  dano-er,  let 
hhn  take  it  with  the  hlood^ 

In  the  old  editions,  I  remarked,  there  is  the  case  supposed 
of  a  mouse  making  away  with  Jesus  Christ !  Here  however, 
we  have  only  the  case  of  a  spider,  or  gnat,  or  fly,  falling  into 
the  cup.  And  for  this  awful  delinquency,  the  poor  spider, 
"or  fly,  is  to  be  carefully  washed  and  prepared,  and  then,  as  if 
it  were  a  heretic,  it  is  to  be  burned  to  death !  But  if  the 
priest  should  be  able  to  swallow  it  along  with  the  wine,  with- 
out danger  of  sickness  of  the  stomach,  he  is  desired  so  to  take 
it.  And  the  httle  transgi'essor,  instead  of  being  burned  to 
death,  is  destined  for  the  higher  privilege  of  being  swallowed 
by  the  priest ! 

Again :  "  If  in  winter  the  blood  be  congealed  in  the  chalice, 
let  the  chalice  be  wrapt  in  warm  cloths  ;  if  this  does  not  suc- 
ceed, let  it  be  placed  in  hot  water  near  the  altar,  provided  it 
does  not  enter  into  the  chalice,  until  it  be  melted." 

Here  our  Creator,  our  God,  the  soul  and  Deity  of  Jesus 
Christ,  are  supposed  to  be  frozen  ;  and,  as  if  He  had  no  power 
to  warm  himself,  the  priests  are  to  cover  Him  with  warm  cloths. 
And  if  He  will  not  be  softened  by  this.  He  is  to  be  placed  in 
hot  water — in  a  warm  bath  till  He  is  melted ! 

Again :  "  If  through  carelessness  some  of  the  blood  of 
Christ  have  fallen — if  indeed  on  the  earth,  or  on  the  board, 
let  it  he  licked  with  the  tongue^  and  let  the  place  itself  be 
scraped  as  much  as  is  sufficient,  and  let  what  has  been  scraped 
off  be  burned ;  and  let  the  ashes  be  laid  up  iu  the  sacrarium. 
But  if  it  have  fallen  on  the  stone  of  the  altar,  let  the  jyriest  suck 
up  the  drop :  and  let  the  place  be  well  washed,  and  the  ablu- 
tion be  thrown  into  the  sacrarium.  If  a  drop  has  come  on 
the  hnen  of  the  altar,  and  to  the  second  linen — ^if  even  to  the 
third,  let  the  linen  coverings  be  thrice  washed,  where  the  drop 
has  fallen,  placing  the  chalice  under,  and  let  the  water  of  ab- 
lution be  thrown  into  the  sacrarium." 

Here  if  the  Lord  Jesus  should  iiAl  from  the  carelessness  of 
the  priest — as  if  the  Lord  could  not  take  care  of  himself — 


TBANSUBSTANTIATION.  361 

He  is  to  be  licked  up  by  the  priest,  and  tbere  is  to  be  wasting 
of  the  Unen,  and  scraping  of  the  earth,  or  rubbing  of  the 
board,  that  none  of  Him  remain  there ;  whereas  if  it  be  really 
transubstantiated  into  Jesus  Christ,  as  the  Church  of  Rome 
would  persuade  us — if  it  really  be  Jesus  Christ,  and  not 
merely  wine,  we  might  suppose  He  could  go  away  of  Himself, 
if  He  did  not  choose  to  remain. 

How  is  it  possible,  I  asked,  to  read  such  rubrics  as  these, 
sanctioning  such  strange  absurdities,  without  either  our  sense 
of  ridicule  being  intensely  excited,  or  our  whole  soul  shocked 
at  their  profanity  ?  But  there  remained  another,  it  gives  in- 
expressible pain  and  sadness  to  read  it,  worse  and  more  pro- 
fane than  all.     It  is  as  follows : 

'■'■  If  the  priest  vomit  forth  the  Eucharist,  if  the  species  ap- 
pear entire,  let  them  be  reverently  taken  (i.  e.,  eaten  again), 
unless  nausea  arise ;  for  in  that  case,  let  the  consecrated  species 
be  carefully  separated,  and  let  them  be  replaced  in  some 
sacred  place,  until  they  are  corrupted,  and  afterward  let 
them  be  thrown  into  the  sacrarium.  But  if  the  species  do 
not  appear,  let  the  vomit  be  burned,  and  the  ashes  be  thrown 
into  the  sacrarium." 

Of  this,  I  said,  I  would  say  nothing.  It  supposes  the  priest 
to  receive  his  God,  and  then  to  vomit  his  God  !  I  added  that 
I  had  no  desire  to  throw  scorn  or  ridicule  upon  the  Church 
of  Rome ;  and  though  if  so  disposed,  I  could  find  abundant 
example  in  the  biting  sarcasms  of  the  prophet  Isaiah  against 
the  wooden  gods  of  the  heathen,  and  in  the  bitter  irony  of 
the  prophet  Elisha,  against  the  idols  of  Baal,  yet  the  very  lan- 
guage of  the  Church  of  Rome  herself  has  used — ^the  very 
cases  she  herself  has  supposed — the  very  directions  she  her- 
self has  given — the  very  pages  of  the  Roman  Missal  she 
herself  has  written — are  more  biting  than  any  sarcasm  that 
we  could  frame,  and  more  bitter  than  any  irony  that  we  could 
utter.  When  she  supposes  a  priest  to  vomit  his  God,  and 
when  she  directs  him  to  partake  of  it — to  swallow  it  again, 
she  exhibits  herself,  not  only  as  the  mother  of  superstitions, 
but  also  as  the  mother  of  abominations. 

16 


362  EVENINGS    WITH   THE    R0MANI3T8. 

Ridicule  assuredly  is  not  the  weapon  with  which  to  deal 
with  such  a  system,  however  much  it  may  deserve  it  or  pro- 
voke it.  It  is  weeping  and  shame  and  humiliation,  that  most 
become  us,  where  any  professing  Church  can  expose  the  most 
sacred  things  of  Christ  to  the  jests  of  the  scoffer,  and  the  ridi- 
cule of  the  infidel. 

During  the  reading  of  these  rubrics,  which  I  made  oiir 
Roman  Catholic  companion  read  with  me,  he  never  spoke,  but 
stood  with  lips  closely  compressed,  his  eyes  cast  down,  and  a 
troubled  expression  on  his  countenance.  After  a  pause,  he 
said  that  he  had  never  before  read  that  portion  of  the  Missal ; 
but  now  that  he  had  seen  it,  he  could  no  longer  blame  those 
who  ridiculed  the  book,  however  little  he  liked  ridicule 
against  his  Church.  He  then*took  the  Missal  from  my  hands, 
and  with  all  his  force  he  flung  it  over  the  steep  cliff-like 
banks  to  perish  in  the  sea,  using  the  emphatic  words,  "  I  have 
done  with  the  Missal !" 

I  took  the  opportunity  of  the  casting  away  of  the  Missal  to 
call  his  attention  to  "  the  casting  away  the  word  of  the  Lord 
of  Hosts,"  which  was  charged  against  the  unbelieving  Jews. 
— Isaiah  v.  24.  It  was  the  sin  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  that 
she  practically  cast  it  away.  And  while  enlarging  on  the 
value,  the  usefulness,  the  power  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  I 
expressed  a  hope,  that  as  he  had  cast  away  the  word  of  his 
Church,  so  he  might  now  be  induced  to  take  up  the  Word  of 
bis  God. 

One  observation  led  to  another,  especially  as  his  mind  was 
still  dwelling  on  our  former  subject,  and  he  was  asking  ques- 
tions respecting  it.  I  was  induced  thus,  while  walking  home- 
ward toward  my  inn,  having  been  accompanied  a  large  por- 
tion of  my  way^by  both  the  men,  to  state  again  that  whatever 
were  the  evils  connected  with  ridicule  and  sarcasm  in  refer- 
ence to  religious  tenets,  they  belonged  to  those  who  held  and 
taught  ridiculous  and  absurd  tenets,  rather  than  to  those  who 
exposed  their  ridiculous  and  absm-d  character, 

I  illustrated  this  by  specifying  the  doctrine  of  Transubstan- 
tiation.    In  order  to  uphold  that  doctrine  in  the  Church  of 


TRANSCTKbTANTIATION.  '  363 

Rome,  it  is  taught  that  our  Lord  celebrated  the  first  Mass — 
that  in  instituting  the  sacrament  of  the  last  supper,  he  cele- 
brated the  first  sacrifice  of  the  Mass.     This  is  broadly  asserted 
in  most  of  the  catechisms  of   the  Church  of  Rome.     It  is 
essential  to  the  Mass  that  the  celebrating  priest  shall  himself 
partake  of  the  elements  in  both  kinds,  shall  partake  of  the 
consecrated  bread  and  the  consecrated  wine ;  at  least,  it  is  so 
asserted  in  that  Church ;  so  that  if  our  Lord  celebrated  Mass 
on  that  occasion,  He  must  have  partaken  of  it  Himself.    Now 
the  difiiculty  is  this — one  that,  were  it  not  for  the  sacredness 
of  the  subject,  and  the  religiousness  of  all  its  associations, 
miffht  awaken  unmeasured  ridicule — If  our  blessed  Lord,  in 
consecrating  the  bread  and  wine,  did  really,  truly,  substan- 
tially change  or  transubstantiate  them  into  Himself,  into  his 
own  body,  and  blood,  and  soul,  and  divinity — if  our  blessed 
Lord  did  all  this,  as  the  Church  of  Rome  teaches,  then  He 
must  have  held  Himself  in  his  own  hands,  and  given  Himself 
to  his  apostles  to  eat,  and  they  must  have  eaten  and  swal- 
lowed Him,  as  all  the  while  He  was  sitting  at  the  table  before 
them  !    And  this  not  once,  but  twice ;  first  when  He  gave  the 
bread,  and  afterward  when  He  gave  the  cup. 

"  Well,  sir,"  he  said,  with  a  calm  and  quiet  manner, 
"  strange  as  it  may  seem  to  you — ridiculous  and  absurd  as  it 
may  seem  to  you — I  beheve  it.  The  Church  has  declared  it. 
The  Church  believes  it — and  I  believe  it."  He  added  imme- 
diately afterward,  that  He  could  not  be  surprised  at  persons 
regarding  it  as  ridiculous  and  absurd,  who  did  not  believe  the 
Church. 

I  then  said — we  both  were  speaking  in  the  most  friendly 
manner,  and  were  on  the  frankest  terms — that  that  was  not 
the  only  difficulty.  By  the  doctrine  of  the  sacrifice  of  the 
Mass,  the  officiating  priest  must  partake  himself  of  the  sacri- 
fice, whether  there  are  or  are  not  other  communicants.  On 
the  occasion,  therefore,  of  the  last  supper,  our  blessed  Lord 
must,  according  to  the  Chiirch  of  Rome,  have  partaken  of  the 
sacrament ;  and  "thus,  not  once,  but  twice — first  on  eating  the 
bread,  and  then  on  taking  the  wine — He  must  have  eaten  and 


S64  EVENINGS    WITH   THB    ROMANISTS. 

swallowed  Himself!  Now  I  appeal  to  yourself,  I  said  in  all 
earnestness,  whether  a  Church,  which  teaches  so  monstrous  a 
thing  as  this,  is  not  guilty  of  throwing  upon  religion  the 
utmost  amount  of  ridicule,  and  exposing  it  to  the  scoff  of  an 
unbelieving  world.  It  is  enough  to  make  good  men  doubt 
whether  most  to  weep  in  sorrow  and  sadness,  or  to  pray  for 
the  annihilation  of  such  a  Church. 

He  seemed  to  feel  the  grossness  of  this  consequence,  but 
suggested  that  it  was  not  clear  in  Scripture  that  our  Lord 
Himself  partook  of  this  sacrament. 

My  reply  to  this  was,  that  I  agreed  with  him  that  it  was 
not  so  clearly  stated  in  Scripture  ;  but  that  the  diflBculty,  un- 
happily, was  that  the  Church  of  Rome  had  clearly  asserted 
it ;  teaching  that  our  Lord,  on  that  occasion,  celebrated  the 
first  sacrifice  of  the  Mass,  and  that  it  was  necessary  to  the 
being  of  that  sacrifice,  that  the  celebrating  priest  should  him- 
self partake  of  it.  The  Church  of  Rome  had  herself  created 
the  diflSculty. 

He  acknowledged  this.  But  he  never  swerved  from  his 
position  throughout  a  long  conversation  that  ensued.  He 
always  stated,  when  hard  pressed,  that  the  Church  believed 
it,  and  therefore  he  believed  it.  This,  after  a  time,  led  us 
from  our  first  subject  into  that  which  concerned  the  authority 
of  the  Church. 

After  we  had  parted  fi'om  him,  the  Scripture  reader  accom- 
panied me  a  little  further. 

I  gave  him  some  precautionary  advice  as  to  argimaents  de- 
rived from  ridicule — that  the  sense  of  the  ridiculous  was  very 
strong  in  the  Irish  character,  stronger  than  in  most  nations — 
that  for  that  cause  it  was  possible  it  might  cut  further  and 
deeper  than  might  be  wise  or  good — and  that  therefore  it 
should  never  be  resorted  to  unless  with  extreme  discretion.  I 
added  that  ridicule  often  shook  men  out  of  one  set  of  opinions, 
but  never  landed  them  in  another. 

We  soon  after  parted.  The  seeds  that  were  then  sowing  in 
that  country,  have  since  been  bringing  forth  fruit  abundantly. 

I  had  yet  some  miles  before  me,  and  had  some  time  for  re- 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION.  365 

flection,  and  my  ttouglits  ran  on  the  mistakes  that  are  often 
made  in  the  conduct  of  controversy.  How  often  we  run  into 
the  vice  of  attacking  the  opinions  of  others  instead  of  simply 
illustrating  our  own,  and  how  often  we  begin  by  selecting  the 
very  points  on  which  we  differ,  thus  exciting  and  provoking 
collision  and  opposition,  instead  of  those  points  on  which  we 
may  be  agreed,  and  which  would  therefore  tend  to  make  us 
bear  the  more  willingly  with  each  other.  I  am  convinced 
that  this  latter  is  the  best  and  truest  process,  and  incompar- 
ably the  most  successful. 


HALF-COMMUNION. 

The  state  of  Ireland  twenty-flve  Years  ago — Controversy  and  Conversions — True 
Mode  of  Controversy— Half-Communion — Institution— Primitive  Practice — Ad- 
mitted by  Councils  of  Constance  and  Trent — The  withdrawal  of  the  Cup — Argu- 
ments in  its  favor  examined— Whether  administered  to  the  Apostles  as  Priests— 
The  Argument  of  Concomitance— The  History  of  this  Controversy — .Tacobel  de 
Mysa  and  John  of  Leyden — Their  Arguments— The  Civil  War  that  ensued — Mo- 
tives assigned  for  withholding  the  Cup — Other  Arguments  examined. 

The  following  paper  was  written  twenty-five  years  ago.  It 
was  a  time  of  mucli  inquiry  and  discussion  on  the  doctrines  at 
issue  between  the  Roman  and  Protestant  Churches.  In  no 
place  was  it  for  a  time  attended  with  happier  results  than  in 
the  parish  in  which  I  held  a  cure.  A  great  majority  were 
Roman  Catholics ;  among  these  a  very  considerable  number 
had  resolved  to  read  the  Holy  Scriptures  for  themselves,  and 
form  their  own  judgments  ou  the  topics  so  generally  discussed 
around  them.  For  many  months  scarcely  a  day  passed  with- 
out one  or  more  of  them  asking  my  solution  of  the  difiiculties 
under  Avhich  they  labored  ;  and  the  result  was,  that  one  hun- 
dred and  ten  individuals  withdrew  from  the  Church  of  Rome 
and  entered  the  Church  of  England. 

On  each  Sunday,  as  in  the  communion-service  of  our  Church 
I  had  concluded  the  reading  of  the  Nicene  Creed,  I  paused  for 
a  few  moments.  One  or  two  or  more  pew-doors  were  then 
opened,  and  one  or  more  persons,  till  then  always  Roman 
Catholics,  advanced  to  the  communion  rails,  each  accompanied 
by  two  of  the  Protestant  parishioners.  '  I  had  carefully  ex- 
amined them  previously.  They  stated  before  the  church  their 
desire  to  be  received  as  members  of  the  Church  of  Enarland. 
And  when  their  religious  opinions  and  moral  character  were 


HALF-COMMUNION.  367 

avouched  by  their  Protestant  neighbors  who  accompanied 
them,  they  were  received  by  me  into  the  congregation.  This 
continued  for  several  months  with  scarcely  the  omission  of  a 
single  Sunday.  The  strangeness  of  the  scene,  occurring  as  it 
did  in  a  retired  country  parish,  created  great  excitement. 

It  could  not  continue  long.  As  one  of  these  converts  rose 
the  morning  after  he  had  been  thus  received,  and  opened  the 
door  of  his  house,  he  perceived  his  grave  already  prepared — al- 
ready dug  before  his  door,  and  found  a  notice  requiring  him  to 
return  to  the  Church  of  Rome  or  prepare  immediately  for  his 
grave  !  The  following  night  a  number  of  men  dashed  open 
the  door  of  his  house — asked  whether  he  intended  to  comply 
with  their  commands — on  receiving  a  refusal  they  beat  him 
dreadfully,  and  then  with  a  vessel  of  water  they  proceeded  to 
rebaptize  him  forcibly  into  the  Church  he  had  forsaken! 
Then  smashing  to  atoms  every  article  of  furniture  in  the  house 
they  departed.  This  man  continued  faithful,  and  one  of  those 
misguided  fellows  was  convicted  of  the  offense  and  transported. 

There  was  another  still  more  painful  affair.  The  school- 
master of  the  Roman  Catholic  school  had  been  reading  the 
Holy  Scriptures  for  Some  time,  and  at  last  announced  his  in- 
tention of  going  to  the  parish  church  and  there  renouncing 
the  Church  of  Rome.  When  the  day  arrived,  he  left  his  cot- 
tage at  the  usual  hour,  but  never  reached  the  church.  On 
that  holy  day — that  day  of  rest,  and  peace,  and  love,  he  was 
waylaid — his  brains  dashed  out,  and  thus  he  was  atrociously 
murdered  on  the  high-road  between  his  cottage  and  the 
church !  The  New  Testament  and  some  Protestant  tracts 
were  found  in  his  pockets.  The  murderers  were  never  dis- 
covered. 

A  few  more  incidents  of  a  similar  character  spread  a  terror 
through  the  neighborhood.  Fear  seized  upon  every  one. 
The  conversions  ceased,  and  immediately  the  population  began 
to  emigrate.  The  converts  were  among  the  first  that  went, 
and  they  were  soon  followed  by  many  who  sought  in  a  far 
distant  clime  the  religious  freedom  that  was  denied  them  in 
their  fatherland. 


368  EVENINGS   WITH   THE   ROMANISTS. 

It  was  during  this  period,  and  when  much  engaged  in 
practical  controversy,  that  the  following  paper  was  written. 
It  was  at  the  request  of  one  who  is  now  in  another  and  hap- 
pier world. 

In  all  conversations  with  true-hearted  and  earnest  members 
of  the  Church  of  Rome,  it  is  of  importance  to  avoid  a  tone  or 
spirit  of  controversy — not  avoiding  the  discussions  of  essential 
differences,  but  discussing  them,  as  far  as  possible,  in  a  non- 
controversial  manner.  We  too  often  seek  for  some  point  in 
dispute — seize  it  with  avidity,  and  in  a  pugnacious  spirit  we 
proceed  to  argue  which  is  right  and  which  is  wrong.  The 
tendency  of  this  is  to  alienate  rather  than  unite  men.  It 
would  be  infinitely  better  in  every  way,  and  far  more  success- 
ful, if  we  sought  rather  some  point  on  which  we  are  sure  to 
be  in  accord — to  commence  the  conversation,  not  on  points  on 
which  we  are  at  issue,  and  which  would  at  once  awaken  a 
spirit  of  resistance,  but  on  principles  that  are  common  to  both 
Churches.  This  process  leads  to  a  kindlier  tone,  and  a  more 
free  and  frank  expression  of  the  inner  feelings.  It  tends  to 
establish  confidence,  and  when  once  this  is  established,  there 
will  be  little  difiiculty  in  laying  doAvn  some  broad  principles 
upon  which  any  argument  may  afterward  be  based.  A  wise 
controversialist  will  always  use  such  admitted  principle — such 
acknowledged  truth  as  the  right  arm  of  his  after-discussion. 

I  would  illustrate  this. 

It  is  not  difiicult  to  dwell  on  the  example  of  Jesus  Christ 
as  the  perfect  model  which  we  should  follow.  It  is  easy 
as  well  as  pleasant  to  dilate  on  His  mercy  and  goodness,  and 
love  and  benevolence.  It  is  easy  as  well  as  profitable,  to 
dwell  on  His  purity  and  holiness,  and  His  wonderful  life  and 
death.  It  is  easy  to  present  Him  as  the  perfection  of  human 
nature,  and  therefore  as  One  whose  example  we  should  follow 
in  all  that  is  possible.  Whatever  be  the  example  He  set 
should  be  the  object  of  our  earnest  imitation,  so  earnest  as 
that  we  should  feel  a  sacredness  and  religiousness  in  it,  and 
feel  that  we  are  departing  from  Christ  in  exact  proportion  as 


HALF-COMMUNION.  369 

we  are  departing  from  the  example  he  has  left  for  our  imita- 
tion. Every  Roman  Catholic  will  readily  assent  to  this,  and 
therefore  in  this  we  have  a  truth  or  principle  in  common,  on 
which  we  can  safely  argue. 

It  is  also  not  difficult  to  dwell  on  the  sacredness  that  in- 
vests all  his  words  and  precepts.  All  that  came  fi'om  his  lips 
wfts  full  of  life  and  light  and  love,  and  will  be  felt  to  possess 
such  a  sacred  religiousness  and  authority  and  majesty  that 
every  mouth  must  be  stopped — every  objection  silenced — 
every  argument  set  at  naught — every  thought  suppressed  that 
comes  in  collision  with  his  words.  Neither  man  nor  Church 
can  demand  any  thing  that  is  clearly  opposed  to  his  words. 
When  he  has  spoken,  all  mankind  must  be  silenced.  The 
question  is  already  decided.  Causa  Jlnita  est ;  every  Roman 
Catholic  will  acquiesce  in  this,  and  therefore  here  again  there 
will  be  a  common  principle. 

It  is  not  difficult  too  to  come  into  accord  as  to  the  deep 
and  essential  sacredness  of  the  sacraments.  It  is  felt  by  all, 
and  the  feeling  is  probably  as  deep  and  profound  among  the 
members  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  as  among  ourselves,  that  as 
they  are  the  rites  instituted  by  Christ  Himself,  as  the  signs 
and  seals  of  our  covenant  relationship,  so  they  ought  to  pos- 
sess a  peculiar  sacredness  of  character  in  our  eyes.  And  al- 
though there  may  be  a  difference  between  us  as  to  the  num- 
ber of  sacraments,  yet  there  can  be  no  difference  in  reference 
to  those  of  Baptism,  and  the  Lord's  Supper,  which  are  fully 
admitted  by  both  ahke,  as  being  entitled  to  a  peculiar,  reve- 
rential, scrupulous  and  hallowed  care,  that  nothing  be  done 
contrary  to  the  words  or  opposed  to  the  example  of  Jesus 
Christ  respecting  them. 

These  principles  will  be  readily  admitted  even  by  those 
who  refuse  to  recognize  the  Holy  Scriptures  as  the  sole  rule 
of  faith  and  practice,  and  who  refuse  to  submit  to  any  private 
interpretation  of  them.  These  principles  being  settled,  it  will 
be  easy  to  object  against  the  practice  of  half-communion  in 
the  Church  of  Rome,  as  a  practice  that  prevents  the  possibili- 
ty of  our  joining  her  communion. 

13*  - 


370  EVENINGS   WITH   THE   ROMANISTS. 

Her  pnctice  is  this — The  priest,  who  officiates,  consecrates 
both  bread  and  wine ;  he  then  himself  partakes  of  both  kinds 
— both  the  bread  and  the  wine,  and  then,  when  administering 
to  the  people,  he  gives  them  only  in  one  kind — only  the  bread, 
and  not  the  wine.  This  is  the  practice  of  the  Church  of  Rome. 
The  priest  receives  in  both  kinds,  the  communicants  receive 
only  in  one  kind. 

The  argument  is  as  follows : 

It  has  been  admitted  that  we  should  strictly  follow  the 
tvords  of  our  Lord — that  we  should  as  far  as  possible  imitate 
the  example  of  our  Lord — that  we  should  be  specially  careful 
to  do  this  in  so  sacred  a  matter  as  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord''s 
Supper.  Now,  the  practice  of  half-communion  in  the  Church 
of  Rome  is  admitted  to  be  contrary  to  our  Lord's  words,  and 
opposed  to  our  Lord's  example. 

Those  words  and  example  are  as  follows : 

"  And  as  they  were  eating,  Jesus  took  bread,  and  blessed  it, 
and  brake  it,  and  gave  it  to  his  disciples,  and  said.  Take,  eat ; 
this  is  my  body.  And  he  took  the  cup,  and  gave  thanks,  and 
gave  it  to  them,  saying.  Drink  ye  all  of  it;  for  this  is  my 
blood  of  the  new  testament,  which  is  shed  for  many  for  the 
remission  of  sins." — Matt,  xxvi,  26,  27,  28. 

"  And  as  they  did  eat,  Jesus  took  bread,  and  blessed  it,  and 
brake  it,  and  gave  it  to  them,  and  said,  Take,  eat,  this  is  my 
body.  And  he  took  the  cup,  and  when  he  had  given  thanks, 
he  gave  it  to  them  :  and  they  all  drank  of  it.  And  he  said 
unto  them.  This  is  mv  blood  of  the  new  testament,  which  is 

7  »/  7 

shed  for  many." — Mark,  xiv.  22-24. 

"  And  he  took  bread,  and  gave  thanks,  and  brake  it,  and 
gave  unto  them,  saying,  This  is  my  body  which  is  given  for 
you  :  this  do  in  remembrance  of  me.  Likewise  also  the  cup 
after  supper,  saying.  This  cup  is  the  new  testament  in  my 
blood,  which  is  shed  for  you." — Luke,  xxii.  19,  20. 

"  For  I  have  received  of  the  Lord  that  which  I  also  delivered 
unto  you,  That  the  Lord  Jesus  the  same  night  in  which  he 
was  betrayed  took  bread :  and  when  he  had  given  thanks,  he 
brake  it,  and  said,  Take,  eat :  this  is  my  body,  which  is  broken 


HALF-COMMUNION.  371 

for  you,  this  do  in  remembrance  of  me.  After  the  same 
manner  also  he  took  the  cup,  when  he  had  supped,  saying, 
This  do  ye,  as  often  as  ye  drink  it,  in  remembrance  of  me. 
For  as  often  as  ye  eat  this  bread,  and  drink  this  cup  of  the 
Lord,  unworthily,  ye  shall  be  guilty  of  the  body  and  blood  ot 
the  Lord.  But  let  a  man  examine  himself,  and  so  let  him  eat 
of  that  bread  and  diink  of  that  cup." — 1  Cor.  xi.  23-28. 

When  these  four  distinct  and  independent  narratives  are 
read,  it  will  be  seen  that  they  all  agree  in  the  one  great  fact, 
that  our  Lord  instituted  this  sacrament  in  both  kinds — that. 
He  administered  it  in  both  kinds — that  the  apostles  received  ii 
in  both  kinds.  They  also  agree  in  this  important  fact  that  oui 
Lord  on  giving  the  bread,  said  precisely  the  same  as  on  giving 
the  wine,  and  gave  identically  the  same  command  on  giving 
the  wine  as  on  giving  the  bread.  The  only  distinction  dis- 
cernible is,  that  according  to  St.  Matthew,  He  added  the 
speciality  on  administering  the  cup,  "  Drink  ye  all  of  it,"  as 
if  he  foresaw  with  prophetic  eye  the  future  withdrawal  of  the 
cup,  and  gave  his  special  commandment  as  a  warning  of  it. 
And  in  like  manner,  there  is  added  in  St.  Mark  the  further 
speciality,  "  and  they  all  drank  it ;"  as  if  to  record  for  all 
posterity  the  fact  that,  in  the  original  institution,  when  our 
Lord  himself  administered,  and  the  apostles  themselves  re- 
ceived, they  received  the  wine,  as  well  as  the  bread.  These 
specialities  were  not  without  design,  and  are  very  significant ; 
and  the  after-history  of  the  Church  has  proved  their  import- 
ance, and  illustrated  their  true  significance ;  for  in  the  Church 
of  Rome,  no  priest  can  now  say  to  his  communicant,  "  drink  ye 
all  of  this,"  nor  relate  of  them,  that  "  they  all  drank  of  it," 
for  the  Roman  priest  who  officiates,  reserves  the  cup  for  him- 
self alone,  refusing  to  administer  it  to  the  whole  body  of  com- 
municants— whether  priests  or  laity.  His  practice  is  thus  in 
direct  opposition  both  to  the  words  and  to  the  example  of 
Christ  himself,  in  the  sacred  matter  of  this  sacrament. 

When  the  subject  has  been  placed  in  this  light  before  the 
more  candid  and  earnest  members  of  the  Church  of  Rome, 
especially  if  it  be  done  with  kindness  and  courtesy,  and  the 


3'72  EVENINGS    WITH   THE    ROMANISTS. 

language  be  fashioned  so  as  to  be  free  from  bitterness  or  scorn, 
it  is  sure  to  act  strongly  upon  them.  In  nine  cases  out  of  ten, 
they  are  not  aware  of  the  distinctness  of  these  gospel  narra- 
tives. They  are  not  generally  acquainted  with  the  Scripture 
narrative.  And  they  are  thus  taken  by  surprise.  When  I 
have  observed  this,  I  have  usually  added — that  there  was  a 
further  consideration  that  aggravated  the  conduct  of  the 
Church  of  Rome  in  this  matter,  namely,  that  it  was  adopted 
and  enforced  with  the  knowledge — the  avowed  knowledge, 
that  it  was  opposed  to  the  words  and  contrary  to  the  example 
of  Christ  himselfj  and  to  the  practice  of  the  apostles,  and  of 
all  the  primitive  Church. 

The  canon  of  the  Council  of  Constance  admits  this. 

"  This  Holy  General  Council  of  Constance  assembled  by  the 
Holy  Ghost,  declares,  decrees,  defines,  that  although  (licet) 
Christ  did  after  supper  institute  the  holy  sacrament,  and  ad- 
minister it  to  his  disciples  in  both  kinds,  yet  notwithstand- 
ing THIS,  the  laudable  authority  of  the  sacred  canons,  etc. — 
and  ALTHOUGH  this  sacrament  was  received  by  the  faithful  in 
both  kinds  in  the  primitive  Church,  etc. — the  Holy  Council 
decrees,"  etc. 

The  decree  of  the  Council  of  Trent  is  to  the  same  effect. 

"  Although  in  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  religion,  in 
the  administration  of  the  sacrament  of  the  Eucharist,  the  cus- 
tom of  receiving  in  both  kinds  was  not  unfrequent,  yet  in  pro- 
cess of  time  the  practice  being  very  widely  changed,  and 
having  been  so  changed  for  wise  and  just  causes,  the  Church 
has  approved  this  custom  of  communicating  under  one  kind, 
decrees  by  law  that  it  shall  so  continue,"  etc. 

These  two  decrees  are  the  laws  that  regulate  this  practice 
of  half-communion  in  the  Church  of  Rome.  They  admit 
that  this  practice  is  contrary  to  the  original  institution  of 
Christ,  and  to  the  practice  of  the  primitive  Church  ;  they  con- 
fess that  "  although"  Jesus  Christ  has  appointed  it  and  the 
apostles  have  administered  it,  and  the  primitive  Church  has 
received  it  in  one  way,  yet  notwithstanding  this,  the  Church 
of  Rome  adopts  and  decrees  another  and  contrary  way ! 


HALF-COMMUNION.  8l3 

There  are  very  few  of  the  more  enlightened  members  of 
the  Church  of  Rome  who  do  not  keenly  feel  this  considera- 
tion, foimded  on  the  admissions  of  the  decrees  of  these  two 
General  Councils  ;  they  are  so  broad  and  plain  an  admission 
of  the  unscriptural  and  novel  character  of  her  present  prac- 
tice. And  when  I  have  pressed  this  upon  them,  I  have  gone 
a  step  further.  Indeed  I  have  always  been  unwilling  to  let 
the  subject  pass  from  me  until  I  have  added  one  further  con- 
sideration. 

I  allude  to  the  consideration  that  the  privileges  and  bless- 
ings and  graces,  which  Jesus  Christ  has  connected  with  that 
sacramental  memorial  of  his  dying  love,  are  connected  only 
with  that  which  He  has  instituted  and  as  He  has  appointed  it. 
When,  therefore,  the  Church  of  Rome  has  altered  His  insti- 
tution to  which  his  promises  are  annexed,  and  has  substituted 
another  institution  of  her  own  in  its  stead,  she  has  no  reason 
to  expect  the  blessings,  and  privileges,  and  graces  connected 
with  the  sacrament  of  Jesus  Christ.  She  has  forfeited  them 
by  departure  from  the  appointed  sacrament.  Instead  of  ad- 
ministering, this  sacrament,  she  administers  only  half  a  sacra- 
ment. Instead  of  receiving  the  communion,  her  members  re- 
ceive only  half  a  communion.  This  sacrament  was  origin- 
ally instituted  by  our  Lord,  in  order  to  be  the  memorial  of  his 
dying  love,  to  be  taken  in  loving  remembrance  of  the  break-, 
ing  of  His  body  and  the  shedding  of  His  blood  on  the  cross  ; 
and  for  the  Church  of  Rome  to  take  away  the  memorial  of 
that  precious  blood — that  blood  of  which  we  read  that  "it 
is  the  blood  that  maketh  atonement  for  the  soul,"  and  "  with- 
out shedding  of  blood  there  is  no  remission  of  sins,"  and  "  we 
are  redeemed — by  the  precious  blood  of  Christ,"  and  "  His 
blood  cleanseth  from  all  sin,"  and  "  Thou  hast  redeemed  us  to 
God  by  thy  blood,"  and  "  they  washed  their  robes  and  made 
them  white  in  the  blood  of  the  Lamb,"  and  "  the  Church  of 
God  which  he  hath  purchased  with  his  own  blood ;"  for  the 
Church  of  Rome  to  withhold  the  memorial  of  this  precious 
blood  in  that  very  sacrament  in  which  Jesus  Christ  so  especi- 
ally appointed  it,  is  an  act  of  impiety  and  sacrilege  against 


374  EVENINGS   WITH    THE   ROMANISTg. 

Christ's  own  institution,  whicli  has  no  parallel  in  the  whole 
history  of  the  Church,  and  which  more  than  justifies  the  re- 
fusal of  all  Protestants  to  take  part  in  her  communion. 

This  argument  has  weight  with  those  members  of  the 
Church  of  Rome  who  are  examining  the  points  at  issue  be- 
tween the  Churches — searching  after  truth — inquiring  for 
themselves,  and  therefore  prepared  simply  and  sincerely  to  ac- 
cept or  reject  such  argument  on  its  merits.  I  have  never  met 
one  such  who  did  not  give  up  this  practice  of  half-commun- 
ion as  untenable,  and  as  one  that  ought  never  to  have  been 
adopted  by  the  Church  of  Rome. 

But  there  are  two  classes  of  persons  who  give  very  different 
answers  to  the  foregoing  argument.  There  are  some  who  are 
sincere,  earnest,  and  candid,  always  prepared  to  ascribe  due 
weight  to  an  argument,,  and  to  acknowledge  their  inability  to 
answer  it,  even  though  remaining  unconvinced  by  it.  There 
are  others,  too,  who  affect  to  see  no  force  in  any,  even  the 
most  conclusive  argument,  and  who  endeavor  to  escape  it  by 
some  subtle  and  unworthy  device,  miserable  and  weak  in  it- 
self, though  perhaps  difficult  and  perplexing  to  the  inexperi- 
enced to  answer. 

With  the  former  and  more  candid  class,  it  is  frequently 
suggested  that  the  arrangements,  and  forms,  and  ceremonies 
of  the  sacraments  are  matters  for  ecclesiastical  reofulation — 
that  as  the  cup  had  been  withheld  for  important  reasons,  so 
again  it  might  be  restored  for  important  reasons — that  it  was 
not  an  article  of  faith  that  must  remain  unchanged  and  un- 
changeable forever,  but  only  an  article  of  discipline  that  might 
at  any  time  be  altered,  by  the  restoration  of  the  cup  by  the 
very  same  authority  which  withheld  it.  Not  unfrequently 
such  persons  express  regret  that  it  ever  was  withheld,  and 
avow  their  wishes,  that  the  Pope  may  see  cause  to  restore  it. 

I  h-ave  always  answered  this,  and  arguments  of  the  same 
nature,  in  one  and  the  same  way.  I  have  answered  that  it 
only  placed  the  matter  in  a  worse  position  than  before,  because, 
if  the  withdrawal  of  the  cup  had  been,  as  an  article  of  faith, 
absolutely  and  unavoidably  necessary,  then  that  very  necessity 


HALF-COMMUNION.  375 

would  be  its  apology  and  defense,  necessity  is  excuse  suflacient. 
But  when  it  is  argued  that  it  is  merely  a  matter  of  ecclesiasti- 
cal arrangement — that  it  is  not  unalterable — that  the  cup  can 
be  restored,  then  it  only  increases  the  impiety  and  sacrilege 
of  the  act  which  is  so  continued  against  the  plain  words  and 
example  of  Christ  himself,  of  his  Apostles,  and  of  the  whole 
primitive  Church. 

A  further  argument  may  sometimes  be  urged  to  the  effect 
that  the  withholding  the  cup  can  not  be  rightly  regarded  as  a 
matter  of  discipline.  The  commandment  of  Christ  is  clear 
and  express,  and  his  example  is  unquestionable.  The_use  of 
the  cup,  therefore,  in  the  sacrament  is  a  matter  of  obedience 
to  him.  And  it  never  was  in  the  province  of  the  Church,  to 
set  aside  his  commandments.  We  read,  indeed,  of  some  who 
"  set  aside  the  commandments  of  God,  that  they  might  keep 
their  own  traditions."  But  they  were  not  the  Church  of 
Christ. 

The  other  and  second  class  of  persons  in  the  Church  of 
Rome,  to  whom  I  have  referred,  as  always  endeavoring  to 
escape  from  an  argument  by  some  subtle  and  unworthy  and 
miserable  device,  usually  meet  the  argument  in  a  different 
way.  They  first  admit  that  our  Lord  administered,  and 
the  Apostles  received  the  sacrament  in  both  kinds,  and  then 
they  add,  that  it  was  because  the  apostles  were  priests,  and 
that  it  was  as  priests  it  was  so  administered  to  them,  and 
thus  they  argue,  that  this  original  institution  is  no  reason  for 
the  administration  of  the  cup  to  the  lay-members. 

I  have  given  two  answers  to  this — 

I  have  told  my  opponent,  with  as  much  courtesy  as  possible, 
that  I  felt  he  urged  it  with  the  hope  of  perplexing  me,  rather 
than  with  his  own  belief  of  its  conclusiveness — that  he  knew 
that  the  practice  of  the  Church  of  Rome  was  never  to  admin- 
ister the  cup  to  either  priest  or  layman — to  any  communicant 
whatever — that  he  knew  that  the  officiating  priest,  as  a 
part  of  the  sacrificial  ceremonial  of  the  Mass,  received  the  cup 
himself,  but  that  he  never  administered  it  to  any  one,  whether 
priest  or  layman ;  that  even  at  the  more  solemn  occasions, 


376  EVENINGS    WITH    THE   ROMANISTS. 

when  as  in  the  High  Mass,  the  oflSciating  priest  is  assisted  by 
one  or  two  others,  still  even  to  them  he  does  not  administer 
the  cup,  so  that  if  any  number  of  priests  were  in  attendance 
for  the  communion,  he  would  not  administer  the  cup  to  any  * 
This  is  the  law  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  How  different  from 
that  of  Christ  and  His  Apostles !  If  this  law  of  the  Church 
of  Rome  had  been  in  the  mind  of  Christ,  when  He  instituted 
this  sacrament,  He  should  have  reserved  the  cup  entirely  to 
Himself,  and  not  administered  it  at  all  to  any  of  the  Apostles  ! 
The  fact  that  He  did  administer  it  to  them  all,  desirinsr  them 
all  to  drink  it — "  drink  ye  all  of  it,"  and  the  fact  that  "  they 
ALL  drank  it,"  are  demonstrative  against  the  novelty  of  half- 
coMMUNiON  in  the  Church  of  Rome. 

I  have  found  this  mode  of  meeting  the  subject  have  its 
effect.     I  have  never  known  even  an  attempt  to  answer  it. 

The  other  reply  which  I  have  sometimes  given  and  which 
is  well-known,  is,  that  if  our  Lord  did  indeed  administer  this 
sacrament  to  the  apostles  in  their  character  of  priests,  then 
the  laity  have  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  it.  If  it  was  only 
as  priests^  they  received  the  cup,  and  consequently  they  who 
are  only  laymen  have  no  right  to  the  cup,  then  also .  it  was 
only  as  priests  they  received  the  hi-ead,  and  consequently 
they,  who  are  only  lajrmen,  have  no  right  to  the  bread.  And 
thus  we  arrive  at  the  conclusion  that  the  laity  have  no  right 
to  receive  this  sacrament  at  all ! 

The  principal  argument  however,  upon  which  the  members 
of  the  Church  of  Rome  rest,  and  on  which  the  Council  of 
Trent  endeavors  to  justify  her  practice,  is  that  which  is  usually 
called — the  argument  of  concomitance.  This  argument  is,  I 
believe,  urged  sincerely,  and  seems  to  be  the  great  dependence 
of  every  class  of  mind  among  them. 

It  deserves  to  be  fairly  and  fully  stated. 

It  is  founded  on  a  belief  of  Transubstantiation.     In  that 
doctrine  they  teach  that  the  bread  is  literally  and  substantial- 
ly changed  in  its  nature  and  properties  into  the  body  and 
blood  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  that  the  wine  is  in  like 
*  The  cup  is  ministered  to  a  Bishop  at  his  consecration. 


HALF-COMMUNION. 


377 


manner  changed  as  to  all  its  natural  properties,  into  His  blood 
and  body.  It  is  thus  held  that  in  the  consecrated  bread  there 
is  naturally  and  truly  the  blood  as  well  as  the  body,  and  that 
in  the  consecrated  wine,  there  is  the  body  as  well  as  the  blood. 
Holdino-  thus  that  both  are  contained  in  the  bread,  they  argue 
that  to  receive  in  one  kind  is  suflScient,  inasmuch  as  by  re- 
ceiving in  either  the  bread  or  the  wine,  no  matter  which,  the 
communicant  receives  together  both  the  body  and  the  blood. 
This  process  of  reasoning  is  usually  called — the  argument  of 
concomitance,  and  is  the  chief  argument  on  which  half-com- 
MDNiON  is  defended. 

The  "natural  answer  to  this  is  a  denial  of  Transubstantiation 
on  which  it  is  founded.     I  prefer  however  dealing  differently 
with  it ;   I  do  not  like  to  seem  always  denying  their  assump- 
tions, and  therefore  I  say  in  reply,  that  it  is  a  matter  of  indif- 
ference to  me,  so  fer  as  half-communion  is  concerned,  wheth- 
er Transubstantiation  be  true  or  untrue.     That  dogma,  wheth- 
er true  or  untrue,  does  not  touch  the  real  question,  and  I 
have  therefore,  for  argument's  sake,  often  admitted  that  doc- 
trine, and  still  pressed  my  argument  against  half-communion, 
as  strongly  as  before,  feeling  that  my  argument  was  equally 
cogent,  whether  Transubstantiation  was  received  or  rejected — 
believed  or  denied:  That  my  argument  was,  that  the  half-com- 
munion of  the  Church  of  Rome,  was  contrary  to  the  original 
institution  of  our  Lord — contrary  to  the  example  of  our  Lord 
— contrary  to  the  plain  language  of  Holy  Scripture — contrary 
to  the  practice  of  the  apostles — contrary  to  the  custom  of  the 
primitive  Church.     This  was  my  argument  as  against  this 
practice  of  giving  only  the  bread,  without  the  cup ;  and  this 
argument  stands  clear  and  independent  of  any  belief  or  disbe- 
lief of  Transubstantiation ;  Half-communion  may  be  or  may 
not  be   consistent  with  Ti'ansubstantiation,  but  certainly  it  is 
not  consistent  with  the  original  institution  of  our  Lord  ;  and 
the  idea  that  Transubstantiation  or  concomitance  justifies  this 
Half-communion,  may  well  lead  to  the  inference,  that  neither 
Transubstantiation  nor  concomitance  were  the  belief  of  our 
Lord,  or  of  His  apostles,  or  of  the  primitive  Church,  inasmuch 


378  KVENINGS   WITH   THE   ROMANISTS. 

as  they  administered  the  sacrament  in  both  kinds,  as  if  the 
idea  of  Transubstantiation  or  concomitance  had  never  entered 
their  minds.  It  may  lead  to  all  this  inference,  but  it  certainly 
does  not  touch  my  argument,  which  is — that  this  practice  of 
administering  in  only  one  kind — administering  only  the  bread 
and  withholding  the  cup — is  inconsistent  with  the  practice  of 
our  Lord,  of  His  apostles,  and  of  the  primitive  Church.  It 
may  be  consistent  with  Transubstantiation,  but  it  is  not  con- 
sistent with  the  original  institution  of  our  Lord. 

To  this,  I  have  never  known  a  reply  that  deserved  a  mo- 
ment's consideration.  As  long  as  the  argument  is  kept  to  our 
Lord's  original  institution — and  to  the  necessity  of  adhering 
to  that  institution — as  long  as  the  argument  is  kept  to  this, 
there  can  never  be  a  reply. 

The  history  of  this  controversy  supplies  a  new  and  addi- 
tional argument  against  the  practice  of  the  Church  of  Rome, 
and  I  have  often  used  it  with  effect,  at  least  I  have  known  it 
exercise  a  considerable  influence  on  some  minds.  Transub- 
stantiation, which  had  been  agitated  in  the  Church  for  above 
two  centuries  before,  had  been  declared  to  be  the  doctrine  of 
the  Church  of  Rome  for  the  first  time  at  the  Council  of  the 
Lateran  in  1225.  The  not  unnatural  result  of  that  doctrine 
was  to  generate  very  widely  the  idea  of  the  non-necessity  of 
receiving  in  both  kinds.  The  dogma  of  Transubstantiation 
and  the  practice  of  half-communion  went  thus  hand  in  hand  ; 
mutually  supporting  and  justifying  each  other.  But,  in  the 
fourteenth  century,  the  casual  meeting  of  Jacobel  de  Mysa 
and  John  de  Leyden  led  to  results  which  then  were  little  anti- 
cipated. These  men,  zealous  and  learned  and  active  clergy- 
men, were  devout  members  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  were 
earnest  believes  in  Transubstantiation.  Like  most  members 
of  that  Church,  they  imagined  that  our  Lord's  discourse  in  the 
vi.  of  John  was  designed  to  apply  to  the  sacrament.  In  con- 
versing on  that  remarkable  discourse,  they  were  impressed 
with  the  fact  that  it  describes  the  drinking  of  the  blood  as 
being  as  necessary  as  the  eating  of  the  flesh.  They  dwelt  oh 
the  words,  "  Except  ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  Man  and 


HALF-COMMUNION.  3*79 

drinh  his  blood,  ye  have  no  life  in  you ;  whoso  eateth  my 
flesh  and  drinketh  my  blood  liath  eternal  life."  In  these 
words  they  observed  that  they  could  have  no  Hfe  unless  they 
drank  the  blood,  as  well  as  ate  the  flesh.  And  the  promise  of 
life  was  only  to  those  who  drank  the  blood,  as  well  as  ate  the 
flesh.  The  awful  warning  is  against  those  who  do  not  receive 
both.  The  gracious  promise  is  only  to  those  who  receive  both. 
Applying  this  language,  as  these  men  did,  to  the  sacrament 
of  the  Lord's  Supper,  they  at  once  drew  the  inference  that  the 
cup  was  as  necessary  as  the  bread — that  there  was  no  promise 
to  half-communion — and  that  in  order  to  have  eternal  life  they 
must  communicate  in  both  kinds.  In  this  they  found  con- 
firmation in  the  language  of  the  Apostle,  where  he  alludes  to 
this  sacrament.  "  As  often  as  ye  eat  this  bread  and  drink  this 
cup,  ye  do  show  the  Lord's  death  till  he  come.  Wherefore 
whosoever  shall  eat  this  bread  and  drink  this  cup  of  the  Lord 
unworthily,  shall  be  guilty  of  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord. 
But  let  a  man  examine  himself,  and  so  let  him  eat  of  that 
bread,  and  drink  of  that  cup.  For  he  that  eateth  and  drink- 
eth unworthily,  eateth  and  drinketh  damnation  to  himself,  not 
discerning  the  Lord's  body." — 1  Cor.  xi.  26-29. 

The  inference  from  this  language  is,  that  one  kind  is  as  es- 
sential as  the  other — that  both  are  essential  to  the  integrity 
of  communion — and  that  whatever  be  the  blessings,  privileges 
and  graces  connected  with  this  sacrament,  they  are  connected 
with  it  only  as  received  in  both  kinds,  drinking  of  the  cup,  as 
well  as  eating  of  the  bread.  These  men,  under  this  conviction, 
taught  that  it  was  necessary  to  salvation  that  all  communi- 
cants should  receive  the  bread  and  then  receive  the  cup,  and 
they  immediately  introduced  into  the  churches  at  Prague  the 
administration  of  the  sacrament  in  both  kinds.  The  city  of 
Prague  and  all  Bohemia  soon  declared  in  favor  of  the  restor- 
ation of  the  cup.  This  awakened,  as  by  an  earthquake,  as  by 
a  volcanic  eruption,  the  whole  energies  and  resentment  of 
Eome,  And  the  unhappy  resolve  of  the  Papal  court  to  put 
down  this  beginning  of  the  Reformation,  not  by  the  holy 
weapons  of  Christian  argument,  but  by  the  brute  force  of 


380  EVENINGS   WITH   THE   ROMANISTS. 

arms,  kindled  the  flames  of  a  civil  war  of  a  century's  continu- 
ance. It  was  in  the  midst  of  this  controversy  that  the  Coun- 
cil of  Constance  was  convened — a  Council  celebrated  for  that 
decree  by  which  it  claims  for  the  Church  of  Rome  the  right 
to  go  against  the  words  of  the  Lord,  to  alter  the  original  insti- 
tution of  Christ,  and  to  depart  from  the  acknowledged  prac- 
tice and  teaching  of  the  apostles  and  the  primitive  Church,* 
and  a  Council  stained  by  treachery  and  blood,  as  having  in- 
duced John  Huss  and  Jerome  of  Prague,  the  reformers  of  that 
age,  to  attend  the  Council  on  the  solemn  faith  of  a  safe  con- 
duct, and  then  ordered  both  to  be  burned  at  the  stake.  But 
"  the  blood  of  the  martyrs"  has  ever  proved  "  the  seed  of  the 
Church."  The  people  of  Bohemia  refused  to  submit  to  the 
decision  of  the  Council ;  frighted  and  indignant  at  the  treach- 
erous burning  of  their  leaders,  they  flew  to  arms,  and  never 
laid  down  their  arms  till  they  secured  their  object — the  restor- 
ation of  the  cup  in  the  sacrament !  To  this  day  the  Emperor 
of  Austria,  as  king  of  Bohemia,  has  the  right  to  receive  the 
cup  in  the  sacrament. 

As  all  these  people  were  devout  believers  in  Transubstantia- 
tion — devout  believers  in  the  notion  of  concomitance,  it  is  evi- 
dent they  did  not  regard  that  dogma  as  an  adequate  reason 
for  the  withdrawing  of  the  cup.  They  felt  that  our  Lord  in- 
stituted this  sacrament  in  both  kinds — that  the  Apostles  ad- 
ministered it  in  both  kinds — that  the  primitive  Church  com- 

*  The  reasons  assigned  in  the  Council  by  sage  and  venerable  men, 
for  so  strange  an  alteration  of  the  institution,  were  surpassingly  ex- 
travagant, and  some  of  them  amusing  enough.  One  pleaded  that  there 
was  danger  of  spilling  the  cup,  and  the  spilling  the  blood  of  God  was 
an  evil  of  too  great  magnitude  to  be  periled  by  restoring  the  cup.  A 
second  argued  that  so  many  persons  had  bad  breaths,  and  it  was  shock- 
ing to  persons  of  piety,  as  well  as  untasteful  to  persons  of  refinement, 
that  such  impure  breaths  should  pollute  the  blood  of  God.  Another 
pleaded,  that  as  men  then  wore  their  beards  unshaven,  it  was  an  intol- 
erable sacrilege  that  the  blood  of  God  should  be  wasted  as  well  as  de- 
filed by  adhering  to  the  beards  of  men.  And  for  this  and  other  wise 
and  discreet  causes,  these  grave  and  reverend  fathers  recommended  the 
cup  tl"  be  taken  from  all  the  women,  who  have  no  beards  at  aU  I 


HALF-COMMUNION.  381 

municated  in  botli  kinds — and  that  tlaey  received  no  real  sac- 
rament whatever,  when  they  received  only  half  the  sacrament. 
It  was  in  their  eyes  a  sacrilegious  dividing  of  the  sacrament, 
and  a  rendering  it  as  useless  as  it  was  lifeless. 

The  answer  usually  made  to  this — besides  the  argument  of 
concomitance  already  noticed — is  that  iu  the  Scriptue  narra- 
tive we  frequently  read  of  only  bread  without  any  mention  of 
the  cup ;  as  when  the  two  disciples  were  at  Emmaus  with  our 
Lord.  "  He  was  known  of  them  in  breaking  of  bread^''  and 
again  when  the  Apostle  was  at  Troas,  "  upon  the  first  day  of 
the  week,  when  the  disciples  came  together  to  break  bread, 
Paul  preached  unto  them."  On  passages  like  these,  they 
argue  that  there  is  no  mention  of  the  cup,  and  that,  therefore, 
we  may  suppose  that  the  cup  was  not  deemed  an  essential  of 
the  sacrament. 

The  answer  is  easy.  The  expression  of  "  breaking  bread," 
was  a  common  phrase  expressive  of  any  social  meal,  and  by  a 
figure  usual  in  all  languages  and  in  all  countries,  a  part  is  put 
for  the  whole.  If  among  us  we  speak  of  taking  dinner,  it  does 
not  necessarily  imply  the  absence  of  wine,  or  if  we  speak  of 
taking  tea,  it  is  not  intended  to  imply  that  there  was  nothing 
to  eat  with  it.  In  precisely  the  same  way  the  phrase  of 
"  breaking  bread"  merely  implied  taking  a  meal,  and  the 
Christians  of  the  apostles'  days  used  constantly  to  have  a  table 
in  common — a  table  supplied  by  the  more  wealthy  members, 
at  which  they  with  the'  poorer  members  used  to  sit  and  eat 
together  in  sign  of  Christian  love  and  fellowship.  St.  Paul 
alludes  to  this  in  1  Cor.  xi.  20,  and  says,  "  When  ye  come  to- 
gether therefore  into  one  place,  this  is  not  to  eat  the  Lord's 
supper."  These  meetings  at  one  common  table — these  re- 
unions of  holy  brotherhood  among  the  Christians — ^these  re- 
unions for  "  breaking  of  bread"  and  "  eating,"  were  thus  not  for 
the  administration  of  the  sacrament,  but  for  other  purposes  alto- 
gether ;  and  besides  this,  there  is  a  further  consideration,  which 
shows  that  this  argument  is  not  urged  sincerely  by  our  adver- 
saries, namely  that  if  these  words  do  indeed  refer  to  the  sac- 
rament, and  if  indeed  it  be  argued  that  in  mentioning  only 


382  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

"  breaking  bread,"  they  imply  the  absence  of  the  cup  from  the 
sacrament,  then  they  will  prove  too  much,  for  they  will  prove 
that  the  priest  as  well  as  the  communicants  had  no  cup,  but 
only  the  bread — that  there  was  only  the  bread  and  no  conse- 
cration of  wine,  which  according  to  the  Church  of  Rome  is 
essential  to  the  service — so  essential  as  that  without  it  there  is 
no  sacrament  and  no  Mass.  And  thus  their  own  argument  on 
the  mention  of  bread  without  the  mention  of  the  cup,  only 
proves  against  themselves,  that  there  could  have  been  no  al- 
lusion to  the  sacrament  in  these  passages. 

But  now  to  conclude  this  subject.  There  are  four  distinct 
accounts  of  the  original  institution  of  this  sacrament  in  the 
Holy  Scriptures.  In  every  one  of  these,  the  communicating 
in  the  cup  is  as  prominent .  as  the  communicating  in  the 
bread.  Whatever  be  the  blessings,  privileges,  and  graces  an- 
nexed by  the  promises  of  Christ  to  this  sacrament,  belong 
to  it  only  as  he  instituted  it ;  and  when  the  Church  of  Rome 
has  altered  this  sacrament — has  disobeyed  His  command — 
has  refused  to  follow  His  example — has  renounced  the  prac- 
tice of  the  apostles,  and  has  departed  from  the  practice  of  the 
primitive  Church,  she  has  no  right  to  expect  the  blessings,  and 
privileges,  and  graces  connected  with  the  sacrament.  On 
the  other  hand  the  Protestant  Churches,  adhering  to  the  very 
form  as  Christ  instituted  it ;  without  alteration  or  mutilation, 
possess  the  true  sacrament,  and  enjoy  not  a  half-communion 
merely,  but  a  whole  communion,  and  on  the  faith  of  the  prom- 
ises of  Christ,  claim  the  blessings  and  privileges  and  graces 
belonging  to  it. 


PURGATORY.  — I. 

Scene  by  a  Bed  of  Death — An  awakened  Eomanist — A  Belief  iu  Purgatory — The 
Doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Rome  respecting  Sin  and  Purgatory — The  Blood  of 
Christ  the  alone  Mode  of  removing  Sin — The  Language  of  Scripture — The  Pvom- 
Ish  Distinction  between  the  Gailt  and  Punishment  of  Sia — The  true  Message 
of  the  Gospel — The  inconsistency  of  Purgatory  with  Extreme  Unction. 

I  WAS  sitting  one  day  in  the  cottage  of  an  humble  and  re- 
ligious man.  His  wife  and  children  were  like  himself  alto- 
gether under  the  influence  of  religion.  His  days  were  now 
drawing  to  their  close,  and  every  thing  promised  a  happy  and  a 
glorious  sunset  to  his  life.  He  was  always  a  happy  Christian, 
one  whose  thoughts  as  to  the  past  were  ever  cheerful  in  the 
remembrance  of  mercies,  and,  as  to  the  future,  were  invariably 
joyous  in  the  anticipation  of  the  promises.  I  was  in  conver- 
sation with  him  and  his  family  on  the  subject  of  his  approach- 
ing death,  and  on  the  way  in  which  the  sting  of  death  was 
removed,  and  its  fears  changed  to  hopes,  and  its  terrors  anni- 
hilated before  the  realization  of  the  promises.  I  had  touched 
on  the  words  of  St.  Paul,  where  he  said,  "  I  have  a  desire  to 
depart  and  to  be  with  Christ." — Phil.  i.  23.  And  again 
where  he  said,  "  I  am  ready  to  be  offered,  and  the  time  of  my 
departure  is  at  hand.  I  have  fought  the  good  fight,  I  have 
kept  the  faith,  I  have  finished  my  course.  Henceforth  there 
is  laid  up  for  me  a  crown  of  righteousness,  which  the  Lord, 
the  righteous  judge,  will  give  me  in  that  day,  and  not  to  me 
only,  but  also  to  them  that  love  his  appearing." — 2  Tim.  iv.  6. 
While  speaking  on  this,  many  of  the  neighbors  came  in  and 
sat  down  to  hear.'  Among  these  were  several  members  of  the 
Church  of  Rome. 


384  EVENINGS   WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

There  was  soon  collected  a  little  conarrearation,  of  about 
some  twenty  or  twenty-five  persons ;  and  wishing  to  use  the 
occasion,  I  opened  my  Bible  and  read  a  few  verses,  and  spoke 
freely  in  connection  with  our  previous  conversation.  Having 
dwelt  on  the  happy  deaths  of  true  Christians  expecting  to 
pass  to  their  rest  and  their  glory  on  their  departure  from  the 
body,  a  remark  was  made  by  a  Roman  Catholic  who  seemed 
very  thoughtful  and  earnest.  It  was  to  the  efi:ect  that  a  man 
could  not  die  happy,  who  was  expecting  to  be  immediately 
conveyed  to  the  fires  of  Purgatory.  This  observation  attracted 
the  marked  attention  of  all  other  Roman  Cathohcs  present,  and 
naturally  led  me  to  contrast  the  faith  of  the  Protestant  with 
the  faith  of  the  Romanist  in  the  matter  of  approaching  death. 
One  anticipating  a  change  from  this  world  to  the  joys  of  Heaven, 
the  other  expecting  a  change  from  this  life  to  the  fires  of  Pur- 
gatory— one  looking  forward  to  death,  as  the  entrance  upon  ■ 
a  world  of  happiness,  and  the  other  anticipating  the  moment  of 
death  as  a  plunge  into  all  the  horrors  of  Purgatorian  fire.  I 
dwelt  on  this  contrast ;  and  as  both  Protestants  and  Romanists 
were  present,  the  contrast  was  vivid  enough  in  its  effects  on 
their  countenances.  I  could  appeal  personally  to  both  parties. 
I  could  appeal  to  their  own  experience  and  observation 
among  their  families  and  friends ;  some  dying  happy,  and  re 
joicing  in  the  hope  of  Heaven ;  others  dying  fearful  and  anx- 
ious in  the  prospect  of  Purgatory. 

One  observation  led  naturally  to  another,  and  the  questions, 
earnestly  but  most  respectfully  put  to  me  by  the  Romati 
Catholics  present,  led  me  to  enlarge  on  the  true  nature  of  re- 
ligion, and  on  the  comforting  character  of  Christianity.  The 
religion  of  revelation  pours  a  flood  of  comfort  around  the 
couch  of  sickness,  and  spreads  a  beautiful  halo  of  light  around 
the  bed  of  death.  The  sickness  is  but  for  a  little  while,  and 
the  death  is  but  for  a  moment,  and  then  unutterable  glories 
are  streaming  as  a  shower  of  splendor  before  the  eye.  Death 
is  swallowed  up  in  victory.  The  grave  is  spoiled  of  its  prey. 
One  is  but  the  antechamber  of  heaven ;  the  other  is  but  the 
usher  that  conducts  us  to  the  presence.     As  he  stands  upon 


PURGATORY.  385 

the  tlireshold.  of  eternity,  the  dying  Christian  catches,  as  it 
were,  brighter  and  happier  glimpses  of  the  glories  that  never 
fade.  He  no  longer  shrinks  IVom  the  grave,  or  trembles  at 
death,  but,  as  he  hears  its  footfall,  his  cheek  flushes  with  high 
hopes ;  and,  as  he  feels  its  cold  hand,  his  heart  beats  high 
with  longings,  for  his  hour  has  come.  He  sees  as  it  were,  the 
gates  of  heaven ;  he  hears,  as  it  were,  the  songs  of  angels ;  he 
feels,  as  it  were,  the  balmy  breezes  of  the  skies ;  and  his  eye 
brightens,  and  his  cheek  flushes,  and  his  heart  throbs,  and  his 
tongue  proclaims,  "  I  am  ready  to  be  ofiered,  and  the  time  of 
my  departure  is  at  hand  ;  I  have  fought  a  good  fight,  I  have 
finished  my  course,  I  have  kept  the  faith  :  henceforth  there  is 
laid  up  for  me  a  crown  of  righteousness,  which  the  Lord, 
the  righteous  judge,  shall  give  me  at  that  day ;  and  not  to 
me  only,  but  unto  all  them  also  that  love  His  appearing." 
The  dying  Christian  is  the  happy,  the  rejoicing,  the  triumphant 
Christian.  He  sees  his  crown ;  he  sees  his  throne ;  he  sees 
his  inheritance ;  and  he  pillows  his  head  in  peace,  for  he  knows 
he  will  awaken  on  the  bosom  of  his  God ;  and  the  last  song  is 
the  song  of  triumph — "O  death,  where  is  thy  sting  1  O 
grave,  where  is  thy  victory  f  But  far  and  away  from  this,  is 
the  death  of  the  Romanist.  He  sees  in  the  grave  but  the 
antechamber  of  the  fiery  furnace,  and  sees  in  death  but  the 
usher  that  conducts  him  to  a  tormenting  Purgatoiy.  He  lies  on 
the  bed  of  sickness ;  yet  that  sickness  is  more  endurable  than 
the  fiery  furnace.  He  hes  on  the  couch  of  agony  ;  yet  that 
agony  is  more  tolerable  than  a  tormenting  Purgatory.  He 
has  no  lights  of  an  approaching  glory  to  illumine  his  darkness. 
He  has  no  hope  of  an  opening  heaven  to  cheer  his  spirit.  He 
stands  shrinking,  trembling,  resisting,  till  his  eye  is  dim,  and 
his  cheek  is  pale,  and  horrors  upon  horrors  gather  on  his 
heart ;  and  he  dies  with  thoughts  of  Purgatory  instead  of 
thoughts  of  Heaven,  and  visions  of  suffering  instead  of  visions 
of  glory.  The  Christian  dies,  expecting  that  hour  to  tread 
the  gates  of  heaven.  The  Romanist  dies,  expecting  that  hour 
to  feel  the  flames  of  Purgatory.     One  dies  rejoicing,  the  other 

n 


386  EVENINGS    "WITH   THE    K{  MANISTS. 

dies  lamenting.     Oh  !  perish  the  doctrine,  that  can  thus  mar 
the  hopes,  and  blast  the  visions  of  the  dying  Christian ! 

Some  time  was  consumed  in  replying  to  questions,  some- 
times simple,  sometimes  subtle ;  but  the  few  and  emphatic 
words  of  the  sick  man,  in  support  of  my  statements  of  the 
glorious  hopes  of  the  Christian  had  a  powerful  effect.  They 
were  few  and  simple,  but  earnest  and  true.  We  all  joined  to- 
gether in  prayer,  and  I  withdrew. 

A  few  days  after  tnis,  I  learned  that  one  of  the  Roman  Ca- 
thoHcs  present  on  this  occasion,  had  been  affected  to  an  unu- 
sual degree,  and  in  an  unusual  manner — that  his  mind  had  been 
so  disturbed  and  his  feelings  so  agitated  by  something  that  had 
been  said,  that  he  could  not  rest  that  night  in  his  bed — that 
he  was  in  such  a  state  that  he  felt  obliged  to  rise  and  seek  the 
open  air  to  cool  his  burning  head — that  he  spent  the  remain- 
der of  the  night  sitting  on  the  cold  rocks,  or  walking  disturb- 
edly  on  the  mountain-side,  where  his  cottage  stood — that  since 
then  his  whole  thoughts  seemed  absorbed  and  lost  in  the  one 
subject  of  his  soul's  salvation — that  he  believed  himself  a  lost 
man,  without  hope  and  without  help — and  that  so  completely 
was  he  overwhelmed  by  these  feelings,  that  he  was  unable  to 
attend  to  his  ordinary  work  and  necessary  occupation. 

I  saw  at  once  that  it  was  necessary  to  see  this  man.  It  is 
true  that  he  was  a  member  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  but  it 
seemed  no  less  true  that  some  new  and  strong  conviction  had 
laid  hold  upon  his  mind.  I  thought  that  there  might  be  an 
opportunity  in  the  then  state  of  his  feelings,  of  leading  him  to 
the  real  sources  of  peace.     I  sent  for  him. 

When  he  came,  he  looked  worn  and  haggard — wan  and 
pale.  He  had  the  appearance  of  wakeful  nights  and  troubled 
days.  He  had  evidently  suffered  much  mentally.  Whether 
it  was  remorse  of  conscience  at  some  special  sin,  or  a  deep 
conviction  of  his  unholy  state  n  general,  or  a  shrinking  hor- 
ror of  his  expected  future,  it  was  impossible  for  me  to  say  ; 
and  it  was  some  time  before  I  could  learn  any  thing  from  him. 
He  was  silent  for  a  few  moments  after  T  spoke  to  him,  but  it 
was  because  he  was  unable  to  speak.     A  nervous  choking 


PURGATORr.  387 

seemed  to  stifle  his  words,  till  a  few  kind  and  gentle  expres- 
sions from  me  seemed  to  act  upon  him.  He  burst  into  a  flood 
of  tears  and  wept  and  sobbed  as  a  child.  I  could  not  but  feel 
for  the  poor  fellow.  He  was  young,  and  in  the  prime  of  life, 
a  tall  and  handsome  man — was  married  and  had  two  children 
— had  a  small  farm  which  he  cultivated  with  his  own  hands — 
and  now  the  strong  man  seemed  as  feeble  and  powerless  as  a 
little  child. 

After  he  had  recovered,  he  told  me  that  all  he  had  suffered 
arose  from  what  I  had  said  on  the  subject  of  Purgatory — that 
till  that  evening,  when  he  heard  me  speaking  about  death  and 
the  after-death,  he  had  always  believed  in  a  Purgatory — that 
Purgatory  was  instituted  for  Catholics,  and  that  hell  was  re- 
served for  the  Protestants — that  he  left  the  Protestants  to  their 
own  fate,  and  always  looked  forward  to  Purgatory  for  himself; 
that  he  knew,  and  God  knew,  and  no  man  knew  so  well  as 
himself  his  own  sins,  and  that  he  had  been  taught  to  look  for- 
ward to  suffering  for  a  time  in  Purgatory,  till  he  could  atone 
for  all  and  be  saved  in  the  end.  And  now,  said  he,  in  a  par- 
oxysm of  feeling,  you  say  there  is  no  Purgatory ! 

The  poor  fellow  seemed  to  find  it  difficult  to  convey  his  pre- 
cise meaning.  His  words  seemed  to  imply  a  deep  and  pas- 
sionate sorrow  that  there  was  no  Purgatory.  He  seemed  to 
wish  for  it  as  a  comfortable  doctiine.  I  was  obliged  to  ques- 
tion him  as  to  his  meaning. 

He  afterward  explained  that  he  was  distracted  between  two 
different  things  which  I  had  stated — that  when  I  had  shown 
there  was  no  Purgatory,  but  only  Hell  after  death  for  the  sin- 
ful and  unrepentant,  he  then  felt  there  was  no  hope  for  him — ' 
that  he  had  hoped  that  by  suffering  in  Purgatory,  and  having 
Masses  and  prayers  said  for  his  soul,  he  might  in  the  end  be 
saved  :  but  now  he  could  hope  this  no  longer.  There  was  no 
Purgatory.  It  was  gone — gone  forever !  And  there  was — 
now — nothing — but  Hell !  He  uttered  the  awful  words  in  a 
slow,  solemn,  low  tone,  that  gave  them  an  appalling  signifi- 
cance.   And  a  shudder  seemed  to  pass  over  his  whole  frame. 


388  EVENINGS    WITH   THE    ROMANISTS. 

He  paused  and  gazed  as  if  looking*  intently  into  another 
world. 

I  then  spoke  very  gently — I  felt  keenly  for  liim — to  remind 
him,  that  when  I  had  told  them  that  there  were  no  purgatorian 
fires  after  death,  there  yet  was  something  else  infinitely  more 
powerful,  and  infinitely  more  efficacious  for  purging  away  sin 
before  death. 

O  yes,  yes,  he  exclaimed — the  blood  of  Jesus — the  blood  of 
Jesus,  "  The  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  His  Son,  cleanseth  from  all 
sin."  Those  were  the  very  words  you  read  from  the  Bible. 
They  sunk  into  my  very  heart,  and  I  remember  them  well. 
And  this,  he  added,  was  the  second  thing  that  was  on  his 
mind.  You  have  taken  away  all  hope,  he  said,  by  taking 
away  Purgatory,  and  then  you  raised  my  hopes — 0  so  high  ! 
— by  speaking  of  the  blood  of  Jesus. 

This  led  to  a  long  conversation. 

In  order  to  a  full  understanding  of  all  that  passed,  it  will  be 
well  to  state  here  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  respect- 
ing Purgatory.  I  had  spoken  long  to  him,  on  the  power  and 
preciousness  of  the  blood  of  Christ,  and  I  have  seldom,  if  ever, 
witnessed  the  message  of  the  Gospel  receive  a  more  full  and 
free  and  happy  response,  than  seemed  to  come  from  his  heart. 
He  seemed  at  once  to  believe,  receive,  and  rejoice  in  it,  but  he 
would  have  me  go  over  the  arguments  he  had  before  heard 
from  me  against  the  being  of  a  Purgatory.  That  this  may  be 
the  more  easily  understood,  the  following  digression  may  be 
inserted  here. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Rome  is,  that  there  is  a 
Heaven  and  a  Hell — that  one  is  for  the  eternal  happiness  of 
the  saved,  and  the  other  for  the  everlasting  misery  of  the  lost. 
And  in  all  this  the  creed  of  the  Church  of  Rome  is  identical 
with  the  creed  of  the  Church  of  England.  But  besides  these, 
the  Church  of  Rome  holds  that  there  is  a  third  place — a  place 
characterized  by  two  properties  ;  one  being,  that  it  is  a  place 
of  torment,  and  the  other  being,  that  it  is  a  place  of  purga- 
tion. To  this  place,  from  its  supposed  efficacy  in  purging 
away  sin,  they  have  given  the  appellation  of  Purgatory. 


PURGATORY.  389 

They  describe  it  as  a  plwce  of  torment.  But  as  to  the  na- 
ture of  its  torments,  the  advocates  of  the  Church  of  Rome 
seem  to  be  divided.  The  opinion  generally  entertained  is, 
that  Purgatory  is  a  region  of  fire,  and  that  the  souls  undergo 
all  the  suft'erings  of  fire.  This  too  is  the  opinion  embodied  in 
the  Catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent.  "  There  is,"  says  that 
catechism,  "  also  thb  fire  of  Purgatory,  in  which  the  souls 
of  the  just  are  purified  by  punishment /or  a  stated  time,  to  the 
end  that  they  may  be  admitted  into  their  eternal  country,  into 
which  nothing  that  defileth,  entereth." — Part  i.  c.  6.  But 
some  of  the  more  modern  advocates  of  that  Church,  feeling 
themselves  hard  pressed  by  our  objections,  have  asserted  that 
it  is  not  quite  certain — ^that  it  is  not  infallibly  settled — that 
Purgatory  is  a  region  of  fire.  Some  maintain  that  it  is  a  fiery 
region,  where  the  soul  is  tormented  with  fire  ;  others,  that  it 
is  a  reo'ion  without  fire,  where  the  soul  is  tormented  with  hor- 
rible  dread.  Both  parties  agree,  however,  that  it  is  a  region 
of  suffering  almost  as  horrible  as  Hell ;  the  chief  distinction 
being,  that  Purgatory  was  but  temporary,  while  Hell  was 
eternal. 

They  describe  it  as  a  place  of  purgation.  To  this  place  are 
consigned  two  classes  of  persons.  1.  All  who  die  under  venial 
sins ;  that  is,  all  who  have  not  confessed  and  done  penance 
for  their  venial  sins.  These  persons  are  consigned  to  this 
place  to  undergo  the  measure  of  punishment  due  to  such  sins. 
2.  All  who  have  committed  mortal  sins,  and  have  confessed 
them,  but  have  not  performed  all  the  enjoined  penance. 
These  persons  are  consigned  to  this  place  of  torment,  to  un- 
dergo what  remains  of  the  punishment  supposed  to  be  due  to 
such  sins.  Both  these  classes  are  supposed  to  settle  the  bal- 
anfje  due  upon  their  account,  in  the  suffering  of  Purgatory. 

The  principle  or  doctrine,  upon  which  these  opinions  are 
founded  is  this :  They  hold  that  there  are  two  classes  of  sins. 
1.  Venial  sins.  These  are  supposed  to  be  sins  that  are  little 
sins — trivial  sins;  such  as  little  lies  and  petty  thefts.  They 
are  called  venial,  that  is  pardonable,  as  being  too  trivial  to 
alienate  the  love  of  God,  or,. as  they  express  it,  to  "break 


390  EVENINGS    WITH   THE    ROMANISTS. 

charity;"  and  wMcli  therefore  God  may  very  well  pardon, 
without  any  great  stretch  of  His  mercy,  provided  the  sinner 
undergoes  a  suitable  penance  here  or  hereafter.  2.  Mortal 
sins.  These  are  supposed  to  be  great  sins — sins  so  great,  as 
deservedly  to  damn  the  soul  in  hell ;  and  if  not  confessed, 
absolved  and  satisfied  for  by  penance  in  this  world,  assuredly 
to  be  followed  by  damnation  in  the  world  to  come. 

It  is  no  part  of  my  present  object,  to  examine  or  expose  the 
tendency  of  this  most  unscriptural  doctrine  of  mortal  and  venial 
sin,  though  it  lies  at  the  root  of  one  half  the  practical  errors 
of  the  Church  of  Rome.  My  present  object  is  to  state  what 
the  principle  and  doctrine  is,  upon  which  the  theory  of  Pur- 
gatory is  founded.  They  hold  respecting  these  two  classes  of 
sinners — they  hold,  respecting  all  sin,  that  if  confessed  it  may 
be  satisfied  for  by  "  temporal  punishment "  here  or  hereafter. 
Instead  of  regarding  the  punishment  of  the  repentant  sinner, 
as  being  laid  by  faith  on  Jesus  Christ,  according  to  the  words 
of  the  prophet — "  He  was  wounded  for  our  transgressions.  He 
was  bruised  for  our  iniquities  :  the  chastisement  of  our  peace 
was  upon  Him,  and  with  His  stripes  we  are  healed." — Isaiah 
liii.  5. — instead  of  thus  regarding  the  sufterings  of  the  believer 
as  borne  for  him  by  Jesus  Christ,  when  He  endured  the  agony 
in  the  garden,  and  the  sufferings  in  the  judgment-hall,  and 
the  death  on  the  cross — instead  of  this,  they  hold  that  the 
believer,  however  repentant  of  his  sins,  must  undergo  the  "  tem- 
poral punishment"  himself,  which  is  to  satisfy  for  his  sins. 
That  "  temporal  punishment "  is  explained  of  the  suffering  of 
the  body  in  penance,  in  this  life,  or  the  suffering  of  the  soul 
in  the  pains  of  Purgatory  in  the  life  to  come.  Those  persons, 
therefore,  who  are  guilty  of  mortal  sins,  which  have  been  con- 
fessed, but  which  have  not  been  satisfied  for  by  penance,  and 
those  persons  who  are  guilty  of  venial  sins,  whether  confessed 
or  not,  are  ahke  consigned  to  Purgatory,  in  order  that  by 
their  suffering  there  they  may  satisfy  for  their  sins. 

It  will  at  once  be  seen,  that  by  an  ingenious  complication 
of  the  subject,  a  subtle  advocate  of  the  Church  of  Rome  may 
perplox  an  unwary  opponent.     But  still,  the  result  that  should 


I 


PURGATORY.  391 

remain  on  the  mind  should  be,  that — excepting  those  who  are 
doomed  to  hell,  all  others  must  pass  through  the  sufferings  of 
Purgatory,  until  they  have  balanced  their  account  of  suffer- 
ings. These  persons  are  supposed  to  be  in  commimion  with 
the  Church  of  Rome.  The  region  of  Purgatory  is  their 
special  domain  ;  while  the  members  of  the  Protestant  Church 
are  carefully  excluded.  A  Romanist  indeed  may  enter  there, 
but  the  destiny  of  the  Protestant  has  been  somewhat  pro- 
fanely described,  as  that  of  men  who  must  "  go  further  and 
fare  worse." 

Thus  much  being  premised,  our  conversation  will  be  more 
intelligible. 

I  reminded  him  of  the  truth  that  had  already  so  strongly 
affected  him  ;  namely,  that  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  was  the 
true  means  of  atonement  for  the  sinner.  I  read  the  words, 
"  Behold  the  Lamb  of  God  that  taJceth  away  the  sins  of  the 
wm-ld^''  and  again,  "The  blood  of  Jesus  Christ,  His  Son, 
cleanseth  from  all  sinr  And  I  observed  that  if  Christ  has 
taken  away  the  sins  of  his  people  there  can  be  no  need  of  a 
Purgatory  to  take  them  away  again,  and  that  if  the  blood  of 
Christ  cleanseth  from  all  sin,  emphasizing  the  words  "  all  sin,"' 
there  can  be  no  sin,  venial  or  otherwise,  remaining  to  be  chased 
away  by  the  fires  of  Purgatory. 

He  at  once  exclaimed,  that  the  two  things  were  inconsistent. 
They  could  not  both  be  true.  And  he  added,  earnestly,  that 
his  hope  must  be  in  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ — Blessed  be 
His  holy  name ! 

I  said  that  he  was  right,  but  that  he  might  see  how  full  and 
clear  the  Word  of  God  was  on  the  subject,  I  would  read  some 
other  passages  that  showed  that  Christ  and  only  Christ,  by 
His  blood,  took  away  our  sins.  I  then  continued,  we  read 
that  "  We  have  redemption  through  His  blood,  i\iQ  forgiveness 
of  sins." — Eph.  i.  Y.  We  read  of  Him  as  "  having  forgiven 
all  trespasses,  blotting  out  the  hand-writing  of  ordinances  that 
was  against  us." — Col.  ii.  14.  We  read,  "Every  branch  that 
beareth  fruit.  He  purgeth  it,  that  it  may  bring  forth  more 
fruit." — John  xv.  2.     We  read,  "  How  much  more  shall  the 


392  EVENINGS    WITH   THE    ROMANISTS. 

blood  of  Christ,  who  through  the  eternal  Spirit  offered  Him- 
self without  spot  to  God,  purge  your  consciences  from  dead 
works  to  serve  the  Hving  God  ?" — Ileb.  ix.  14.  We  read,  "  He 
is  faithful  and  just  to  forgive  us  our  sins,  and  to  cleanse  us 
fi'om  all  unrighteousness." — 1  John  i.  9.  We  read  of  those  in 
glory,  as  those  who  have  "  tvashed  their  robes  and  made  them 
white  in  the  blood  of  the  Lamb." — Rom.  vii.  14.  Here,  and 
in  innumerable  places  of  Holy  Scripture  we  read  that  the 
purging  away  of  sin — the  purgation  of  the  soul  fi'om  sin,  is 
the  special  result  of  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ.  It  is  described 
in  those  places  as  a  "  forgiveness,"  as  a  "  blotting  out,"  as  a 
"  purging,"  as  a  "  cleansing,"  and  as  a  "  washing  away  of  sin." 
There  is  no  reference  whatever  to  any  other  method  of  purg- 
ing away  sin,  but  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ.  And  the  power 
of  that  blood — in  other  words,  the  efficacy  of  the  atonement 
on  the  cross,  is  described  as  extending  to  "  all  trespasses,"  and 
"  all  sins,"  and  "  all  unrighteousness,"  and  therefore,  as  extend- 
ing not  only  to  mortal,  but  also  to  venial  sins.  So  when  once 
the  believer  is  cleansed,  purged,  washed,  forgiven  by  Jesus 
Christ,  there  can  remain  nothing  on  the  soul  to  be  cleansed, 
purged,  washed,  or  forgiven  through  the  fires  of  Purgatory. 
To  suppose  with  the  Church  of  Rome,  that  something  remains 
to  be  purged  away  in  the  fires  of  Purgatory,  is  practically  to 
impeach  the  blood  of  Christ ;  for  it  is  all  one  with  supposing 
that  all  the  sin  was  not  purged  away  by  the  blood  of  Christ ; 
it  is  all  one  with  supposing  that  the  blood  of  Christ  was  not 
in  itself  suflScient  in  value  or  in  power ;  it  is  all  one  with  sup- 
posing that  the  blood  of  Christ  had  done  the  work  by  halves, 
and  was  not  adequate  to  do  the  whole,  but  required  the  help 
of  Purgatory  to  complete  it ;  it  is  all  one  with  supposing  that 
Purgatory  is  capable  of  perfecting  that  which  Christ  could  not 
perfect,  and  therefore  is  more  efficacious  than  the  blood  of 
Christ ! 

It  will  easily  be  believed  that  my  companion  entered  most 
fully  into  this  process  of  reasoning.  He  seemed  to  have  re- 
ceived into  his  whole  soul  the  truth  of  a  perfect  and  complete 
atonement  and  forgiveness  in  the  sacrifice  of  Christ.     And  as 


PURGATORY.  393 

verse  after  ver.ie  was  read,  liis  eyes  would  brighten,  and  his 
cheek  glow,  and  his  countenance  smile,  while  his  exclama- 
tions, at  one  time  "  the  precious — precious  blood  !"  at  an- 
other, "  the  woi'ds  are  sweeter  than  music,"  and  again,  "  that 
is  the  blessed — blessed  truth," — all  showed  that  the  Holy 
Scriptures  were  doing  their  destined  work. 

After  a  time  he  told  me  that  he  had  always  been  taught 
— adding  that  it  was  in  the  catechism — that  when  the  Scrip- 
tures said  that  the  Blessed  Lord  took  away  sin  and  forgave 
sin,  it  only  meant  that  He  took  away  or  forgave  the  guilt 
of  sin,  but  that  He  never  took  away  the  punishment  of  sin. 
And  thus,  he  added,  the  Church  of  Rome  teaches  us  that  al- 
though we  have  in  Jesus  the  forgiveness  of  the  guilt  of  our 
sins,  yet  we  have  not  the  forgiveness  of  the  punishment  that 
is  due  to  our  sins.  And  that  thus,  while  Jesus  takes  away  the 
guilty  it  is  Purgatory,  and  penance,  and  absolution,  and  the 
like,  that  take  away  the  punishment. 

I  replied  to  this,  by  saying,  that  there  was  no  ground  for 
this  in  Holy  Scripture,  nor  indeed,  I  added,  in  common  sense. 
If  true,  it  would  mar  the  whole  Gospel ;  for  that  which  a  sin- 
ner fears  is  the  punishment  of  his  sins,  and  the  Gospel  would 
cease  to  be  a  Gospel,  if  it  did  not  bring  the  glad  tidings  of 
salvation  from  the  punishment,  as  well  as  from  the  practice 
and  the  guilt  of  sins.  But  what  is  the  distinction  between 
the  guilt  and  the  punishment  of  sin  ?  We  shall  understand 
tliis  better  by  supposing  a  case.  We  suppose  a  traitor  has 
plotted  treason  against  the  sovereign  ;  his  guilt  is  proved,  and 
the  verdict  given ;  his  sentence  is  pronounced,  and  he  is 
doomed  to  die  a  traitor's  death.  We  further  suppose  the  sov- 
ereign holds  the  prerogative  of  mercy,  and  declares  the  pardon, 
the  free  pardon  of  the  traitor.  The  traitor  relents,  his  heart 
is  filled  with  gratitude,  his  eye  is  flooded  with  tears  of  joy,  his 
pardon  is  sealed,  and  he  expects  his  liberty  and  his  life.  But, 
when  expecting  freedom,  he  finds  his  chains  more  closely 
I'iveted  than  before ;  when  expecting  life,  he  finds  himself 
brought  to  the  scaffold,  and  the  executioner  is  there,  and  the 
ax  is  there,  and  the  parade  of  a  traitor's  death  is  there.     He 


394  EVENINGS   WITH    THE    KOMANISTS. 

demands  the  freedom  and  the  life  his  sovereign's  pardon 
had  given  him.  He  is  answered,  that  the  sovereign  remitted 
the  guilt  of  his  treason,  bu  did  not  remit  the  jiunishment  of 
his  treason!  Would  not  the  fated  man  cry  out  upon  such  a 
mockery  as  this  ?  Would  not  his  severed  head  find  a  voice 
— would  not  liis  headless  body  find  a  tongue — would  not 
every  thing  within  him  cry  out  in  burning  reclamation 
against  such  a  mockery  of  pardon  ?  And  yet  this  spectral 
shadow  of  pardon — this  unreal  fiction  and  pretense  of  a  par- 
don— this  cruel  mockery  is  ascribed  by  the  Church  of  Rome 
to  Jesus  Christ ;  instead  of  that  full  and  free  foroiveuess — for- 
giveness  full  as  the  waves  of  the  ocean  and  free  as  the  winds 
of  heaven,  which  He  has  purchased  in  His  blood.  "  I  have 
blotted  out,  as  a  thick  cloud,  thy  transgressions,  and  as  a  cloud 
thy  sins." — Isaiah  xliv.  22.  "  He  will  subdue  our  iniquities, 
and  Thou  wilt  cast  all  our  sins  into  the  depths  of  the  sea." — 
Mic.  vii.  19.  "I  will  be  merciful  to  their  unrighteousness,  and 
their  sins  and  iniquities  I  will  remember  no  more." — Heb.  vi. 
12.  This  is  the  forgiveness  of  Heaven.  It  remits  the  guilt, 
it  remits  the  penalty,  it  annihilates  the  sin ;  and  any  thing 
short  of  this,  any  remitting  of  the  guilt,  while  there  was  a 
retaining  of  the  punishment,  would  be  as  useless  and  as  cruel 
a  mockery  of  the  sinner  as  it  would  be  unworthy  of  Him  who 
is  the  Prince  of  the  kings  of  the  earth. 

But,  I  continued,  we  have  not  done  wdth  this  doctrine. 
There  is  no  truth  in  the  whole  of  Revelation  more  certain 
than  that  the  sufierings  of  Jesus  Christ  are  accepted  instead 
of  the  sufferings  that  we  deserved.  He  was  foreshadowed 
in  all  the  types  of  the  law,  where  the  sacrificial  victim  was 
brought  to  the  altar  instead  of  the  transgressor.  The  victim 
was  accepted  in  the  stead  of  the  transgressor,  the  victim  was 
slain  in  the  stead  of  the  transgressor,  the  blood  of  the  victim 
was  accepted  for  the  blood  of  the  transgressor,  the  death 
of  the  victim  for  the  death  of  the  transgressor ;  the  throes, 
the  struggles,  the  sufferings  of  the  victim  were  accepted  for 
the  throes,  the  struggles,  the  sufferings  of  the  transgressor. 
The  wholo  ceremonial   represented   a   vicarious    atonement. 


PURGATORY.  395 

The  law  demanded  the  suffering  of  the  transgressor,  but  the 
law  was  satisfied  to  accept  the  suffering  of  the  sacrificial 
victim  in  his  stead.  This  was  the  type  of  Him  who  is  our 
sacrificial  Victim,  "  the  Lamb  of  God  that  taketh  away  the 
sin  of  the  world."  He  has  been  our  sacrificial  victim  ;  His 
suffering,  His  blood,  His  death,  has  been  accepted  as  a  vicari- 
ous atonement  for  our  suffering  and  blood  and  death.  It  is, 
therefore,  the  prophet  says,  "  Surely  He  hath  borne  our  griefs 
and  carried  our  sorrows ;  yet  we  did  esteem  Him  stiicken, 
smitten  of  God  and  afflicted.  But  He  was  wounded  for  our 
transgressions.  He  was  bruised  for  our  iniquities  ;  the  chastise- 
ment of  our  peace  was  upon  Him,  and  with  His  stripes  we  are 
healed.  All  we  like  sheep  have  gone  astray  ;  we  have  turned 
every  one  to  his  own  way,  and  the  Lord  hath  laid  upon  Him 
the  iniquity  of  us  all." — Isa.  liii.  4-6.  This  is  the  Gospel. 
And  this  it  is,  that,  while  it  comforts  and  encourages  the 
believer,  confounds  that  fiction  which  would  teach  us  that 
Jesus  Christ  remits  the  guilt  without  remitting  the  punishment 
of  sin. 

In  all  my  experience,  I  have  seldom,  if  ever,  seen  a  more 
marked  or  emphatic  reception  of  this  cardinal  feature  of  the 
Gospel.  It  seemed  as  if  the  poor  fellow  had  been  gazing  upon 
the  sun  in  its  brightness,  and  his  eye  was  so  dazzled  and  filled 
with  its  glories,  that  even  when  he  looked  away,  it  seemed  to 
be  seen  in  every  thing.  The  several  passages  of  Scripture 
were  like  fresh  rays  of  clear  and  beautiful  light  streaming 
in  upon  the  vision.  He  seemed  as  if  he  could  never  be  weary 
of  taking  them  in,  and  he  made  me  repeat  them  again  and 
again,  and  said  he  could  no  longer  doubt,  but  believe,  that  the 
death  of  Christ  on  the  cross  was  sufficient  for  all  sins,  mortal 
and  venial,  and  for  both  the  guilt  and  the  punishment  of  sin. 
If  Jesus  on  the  cross  has  borne  our  sufferings,  surely  we  shall 
not  have  to  bear  them  again. 


PURGATORY.  — 11. 

A  Conversation  to  reclaim  a  Convert — The  Interval  between  Death  and  the  Judg- 
ment— ^The  Question  as  to  tlie  Abode  of  the  Dead  during  that  Interval — The 
Middle  Region  of  Purgatory — Scripture  reveals  only  Heaven  and  Hell — One 
Mode  of  solving  this  Question  as  to  the  Righteous  Dead — The  non-necessity  of 
the  Middle  State  admitted  by  the  Church  of  Rome — The  Scapularians — Another 
Solution  as  to  the  Ungodly  Dead — Five  Regions  in  Purgatory. 

I  have  already  narrated  a  conversation  on  the  subject  of  Pur- 
gatory, with  a  young  man,  who  was  very  much  in  earnest. 
His  earnestness  led  him  at  once  to  abandon  the  Church  of 
Rome.  He  becam(»  a  frequent  attendant  of  our  cottage-lec- 
tures, and  a  regular  worshiper  at  our  parish  church. 

A  great  effort  was  to  be  made  to  reclaim  him.  Every  thing 
was  done  and  said  by  friends  and  neighbors  and  priests  to 
bring  him  back  to  the  Church  of  Rome.  He  stood  firm  ;  and 
often,  when  he  was  unable  to  answer  their  arguments,  he  used 
to  take  his  stand  on  some  great  and  broad  truth  of  the  Gospel, 
and  bring  the  argument  to  this,  as  to  a  test.  He  explained  it 
to  me  thus.  When  they  argued  for  some  penance  or  mortifi- 
cation, and  he  could  not  answer  as  he  wished,  he  called  to 
mind  how  Christ  had  endured  every  thing  for  him  ; — when 
they  argued  for  the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass,  and  he  could  not 
confute  them  as  he  could  wish,  he  called  to  mind  that  the 
death  of  Christ  was  the  only  true  sacrifice  ;  when  they  argued 
for  praying  to  the  Virgin,  and  he  could  not  answer  them  as 
was  desirable,  he  called  to  mind  that  Christ  was  the  one 
Mediator  between  God  and  man — and  thus,  as  he  told  me, 
he  was  enabled  to  fortify  his  own  mind,  and  repel  every 
argument,  even  when  he  could  not  answer  it.  He  said  he 
felt  that  their  arguments  were  wrong — that  their  doctrines 
were  -wi'ong — that  their  practices  were  wrong — he  felt^   al- 


PURGATORY.  39  Y 

though  very  often  lie  was  unable  to  prove,  that  they  were 
wrong. 

He  stated  to  me  one  day  that  he  had  been  much  perplexed 
with  one  argument  which  he  could  not  answer.  They  had 
asked  him — where  are  the  souls  of  the  dead  between  the 
day  of  death  and  the  day  of  judgment?  They  had  said 
that  they  must  be  in  a  third  place,  which  was  Purgatory.  He 
felt  they  were  wrong,  but  he  could  not  answer  them.  And 
he  stated  ti  at  a  large  number  of  his  friends  and  neighbors 
proposed  coming  to  me  to  argue  it  with  me  in  his  presence, 
for  they  thought  they  could  convince  him  thus  fully,  by  my 
inability  to  solve  the  difficulty. 

It  was  soon  arranged  that  they  should  come  t"  me  at  my 
next  cottage  lecture. 

The  attendance  was  very  large,  as  was  usual  when  any 
thing  particular  was  expected.  The  majority  were  Roman 
Catholics.  A  small  knot  or  party  of  these  sat  together  in 
a  corner,  and  seemed  under  the  leadership  of  a  little  man 
whom  I  well  knew  as  a  controversialist  of  a  very  sharp  and 
bitter  kind.  He  was  clever  ;  and  the  confidence  of  his  man- 
ner seemed  to  have  an  influence  over  a  certain  class  of  the 
peasantry,  I  had  frequently  met  him  before — had  ai'gued 
with  him — and  soon  found,  that  if  I  led  him  out  of  the  beaten 
track,  out  of  the  common  arguments  on  any  point,  he  was 
perfectly  powerless.  He  was  not  a  pious  man,  though  a  great 
and  warm  advocate  for  the  Church  of  Rome  :  being  in  reality 
more  fond  of  politics  than  of  religion. 

When  I  had  concluded  my  lecture,  I  said,  that  I  under- 
stood that  some  of  the  Roman  Catholic  neighbors  wished  to 
ask  me  some  questions  about  Purgatory,  and  that  I  wished  to 
give  them  the  opportunity,  I  Avould  therefore  say,  that  one 
objection  we  entertained  against  that  doctrine  is,  that  it  is  not 
revealed  in  Holy  Scripture.  We  read  there  of  a  Heaven. 
We  read  of  a  Hell.  But  we  never  read  there  of  a  Purga- 
tory. It  is  scarcely  possible,  I  said,  to  open  the  Holy  Scriptures 
without  finding  some  allusion  either  to  the  Heaven  of  the 
saved,  or  the  Hell  of :  ;he  lost.    Our  Lord  has  himself  frequent- 


898  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

\j  allude  1  to  the  world  beyond  the  grave,  and  he  always  re- 
fers to  Heaven  or  to  Hell,  and  describes  the  one  as  "eternal 
life,"  and  the  other  as  "  everlasting  punishment."  He  makes 
no  mention  whatever  of  a  Purgatory,  precisely  as  if  there  was 
no  such  place  in  existence.  Our  Lord  says  not  a  word  respect- 
ing it.  The  Holy  Scriptures  reveal  nothing  about  it ;  whether 
we  read  the  writings  of  the  prophets — the  books  of  the  evan- 
gelists— the  epistles  of  the  Apostles — the  discourses  of  our 
Lord — or  the  preaching  of  the  Apostles,  or  the  visions  of 
Revelation,  while  we  find  repeated  mention  of  Heaven  and 
of  Hell,  we  have  no  allusion  whatever  to  Purgatory.  The 
whole  volume  assumes  the  existence  of  these  two  regions ; 
but  so  far  as  Purgatory  is  concerned,  the  Holy  Scriptures 
are  as  silent  as  if  it  never  existed — as  if  the  sacred  writers 
had  never  heard  of  it. 

Our  little  friend  here  said  that  he  acknowledged  that  the 
Holy  Scriptures  often  mentioned  both  Heaven  and  Hell,  and 
that  they  never  mentioned  Purgatory  by  name.  But,  he  said, 
looking  about  with  confidence,  although  they  do  not  mention 
Purgatory  by  name,  they  have  the  thing  itself.  And  it  is  of 
no  consequence  about  the  name,  if  the  thing  itself  is  there. 
Now,  to  show  that  the  thing  itself  is  there,  he  would  appeal  to 
myself  whether  there  was  not  another  place — a  third  place  for 
the  souls  of  the  dead  ?  He  would  ask  me  or  any  Protestant 
in  the  world — Wliere  were  the  souls  of  the  dead  between  the 
day  of  their  death  and  the  day  of  judg-ment  ?  They  were  not 
in  Heaven,  and  they  were  not  in  Hell.  Where  were  they — 
imless  in  a  third  place,  which  the  Catholic  Church  calls 
Purgatory  1 

This  question  was  proposed  in  a  manner  that  showed  that 
he  felt  the  diflSculty  in  his  own  mind.  And  it  was  apparent, 
from  the  manner  in  which  it  was  received,  that  a  clear  answer 
was  very  necessary.  I,  therefore,  begun  by  saying,  that,  even 
if  there  was  a  third  region,  it  would  not  prove  that  that  region 
was  a  Purgatory.  Our  objection  went,  not  so  much  against  a 
third  place,  as  against  a  purging  place — a  place  supplying 
another  means  of  purging  away  sin  beside  the  blood  of  Christ. 


PUKGATORY.  399 

This  is  our  real  objection.  He  at  once  acknowledged  the 
difference. 

I  then  said  that  there  were  two  ways  of  dealing  with  it. 
And  I  asked  his  careful  attention. 

I.  I  have  first  to  ask  you,  I  said,  or  any  Roman  Catholic 
present,  where  are  the  souls  of  the  Virgin  Mary — of  the 
Apostles  and  all  the  saints,  from  the  day  of  their  death  to  their 
resurrection  ?  The  Pope  is  constantly  canonizing  new  saints. 
Where  are  the  souls  of  St.  Dominic  and  St.  Francis — of  St. 
Cecilia  and  St.  Catharine,  and  of  the  long  catalogue  of  saints 
in  the  Litany?  Their  bodies  are  all  in  their  graves;  but 
where  are  their  souls  ?     Where  are  they  ? 

He  said,  he  supposed  they  were  in  heaven. 

I  then  added,  asking,  whether  it  was  not  true,  that  in  the 
Church  of  Rome  they  confess  to  "  all  the  saints," — they  pray 
to  "  all  the  saints,"  as  if  they  were  in  heaven,  in  the  presence 
of  God,  and  therefore  able  to  intercede  and  mediate  for  them. 
I  ask,  therefore,  as  their  bodies  are  in  their  graves  on  earth, 
where  are  their  souls  between  their  death  and  the  day  of 
judgment  ? 

He  said  again,  that  the  Church  taught  that  they  were  in 
heaven. 

I  replied  at  once  that  this  proved,  on  their  own  showing, 
that  the  souls  of  God's  saints,  God's  holy  children,  can  be 
removed  at  once  to  heaven,  while  their  bodies  are  in  their 
graves,  waiting  their  resurrection.  And  all  His  believing 
people  are  His  saints  or  holy  ones,  loved  by  Him,  redeemed 
by  Christ  and  sanctified  by  His  Spirit ;  so  their  souls  may  be 
translated  at  once  to  heaven.  There  is  no  necessity  for  their 
stopping  in  some  middle  or  third  region.  They  are  at  once 
translated,  like  the  Virgin  Mary,  like  the  apostles,  like  all  the 
other  saints,  to  heaven,  and  there  they  enjoy  as  much  hap- 
piness as  disembodied  spirits  are  capable  of  enjoying. 

The  effect  of  this  was  unmistakable.  Natural  and  simple 
as  it  was,  it  told  with  wonderful  effect.  It  seemed  to  pour  a 
new  light  into  the  minds  of  the  hearers.  They  looked  one  at 
another.     The  Protestants  seemed  extremely  amused.     A  por- 


400  EVENINGS    WITH    THE   KOMANISTS. 

tion  of  the  Roman  Catliolics  seemed  to  feel  it  decisive,  arguing 
that  the  saints,  when  the  Pope  canonized  them,  must  be  in 
heaven,  or  they  could  not  help  us ;  and  others  evidently  were 
hopelessly  perplexed.  The  little  leader  himself  seemed  puzzled, 
and  unable  to  say  a  word.     I  therefore  continued  to  say  that — 

The  souls  of  God's  children,  or  saints,  or  believers,  as 
they  were  variously  called  in  Holy  Scripture,  were  translated 
to  heaven,  and  there  enjoyed  as  much  happiness  as  disem- 
bodied spirits  were  capable  of  enjoying.  There  the  souls 
remained  till  the  resurrection  of  the  great  day,  when  there 
will  be  the  reunion  of  the  soul  and  body,  and  the  fullness  of 
happiness  is  consummated ;  and  on  the  other  hand,  the  souls  of 
the  unrighteous  are  transferred  to  hell,  and  there  they  endure 
as  much  misery  as  disembodied  spirits  are  capable  of  enduring, 
until,  by  the  resurrection  at  the  day  of  judgment,  the  reunion 
of  soul  and  body  shall  capacitate  them  for  all  the  fullness  of 
their  destined  miseries. 

This  is  the  answer  I  have  usually  given  to  the  question, 
saying  that  the  souls  of  the  righteous,  of  the  redeemed  are 
there  in  heaven,  where  the  Romanists  themselves  say  that  the 
souls  of  the  saints  reside.  On  their  own  showing,  there  is  no 
necessity  for  a  middle  or  third  region.  And  undoubtedly 
there  is  much  in  the  language  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  to  justify 
this  answer.  It  is  said  of  the  righteous  in  his  death,  that 
"  the  righteous  is  taken  away  from  the  evil  to  come ;  he  shall 
enter  into  peace ;  they  shall  rest  in  their  beds,  each  one  walk- 
ing in  his  uprightness." — Isaiah,  Ivii.  2.  Again  :  "  We  are 
always  confident,  knowing  that,  while  we  are  at  home  in  the 
body,  we  are  absent  from  the  Lord  (for  we  walk  by  faith, 
not  by  sight) :  we  are  confident,  I  say,  and  willing  rather  to 
be  absent  from  the  body,  and  to  be  present  with  the  Lord." — 
2  Cor.  V.  6-8.  And  again  :  "  For  me  to  live  is  Christ,  and  to 
die  is  gain.  But  if  I  live  in  the  flesh,  this  is  the  fruit  of  my 
labor:  yet  what  I  shall  choose  I  wot  not.  For  I  am  in  a 
strait  betwixt  two,  having  a  desire  to  depart,  and  to  be  with 
Christ,  which  is  far  better."— Phil.  i.  21-23. 

And  again  :  "  Here  is  the  patience  of  the  saints  :  here  are 


PURGATORY.  401 

they  that  keep  the  commandments  of  God  and  the  faith  of 
-  Jesus.  And  I  heard  a  voice  from  heaven  saying  unto  me, 
Wrt  e,  Blessed  are  the  dead  which  die  in  the  Lord  from  hence- 
forth :  Yea,  saith  the  Spirit,  that  they  may  rest  from  their 
labors:  and  their  works  do  follow  them." — Rev.  xiv.  12,  13. 
These  Scriptures,  beyond  all  doubt  or  question,  imply  a  state 
of  happiness  or  blessedness  as  immediately  consequent  upon 
the  death  of  the  righteous.  They  imply  that  the  death  of  the 
righteous  conducts  him  to  peace  and  rest — and  this  is  not 
Purgatory  ;  that  it  conducts  him  into  the  presence  of  Christ — 
and  this  is  not  Purgatoiy ;  that  it  conducts  him  into  a  state 
better  or  happier  than  this  life — and  this  is  not  Purgatory ; 
that  it  conducts  him  to  such  a  state,  that  it  is  more  desirable 
to  depart  than  to  remain — and  this  can  not  be  Purgatory ;  and 
yet  further,  we  read  the  words  of  the  Redeemer  on  the  cross 
to  the  repentant  thief,  "  This  day  shalt  thou  be  with  me  in 
paradise." — Matt,  xxiii.  43 — and  this  can  not  be  Purgatory, 
for  it  is  expressly  described  as  the  inheritance  of  the  righteous, 
and  the  place  where  is  the  tree  of  life. — Rev.  ii.  1.  All  these 
and  countless  parallel  Scriptures  seem  to  imply  that  when  the 
righteous  die,  their  souls  are  taken  to  their  rest,  and  are  in  the 
presence  of  their  Sanour  and  their  God,  and  enjoy  all  the 
happiness  of  which  disembodied  spirits  are  capable,  till  the  re- 
surrection of  the  last  day,  when  body  and  soul  united  shall 
enter  on  the  full  fruition  of  their  destiny  of  glory.  Further 
than  this,  I  added,  the  Holy  Scriptures  do  not  assert,  and 
therefore,  further  than  this,  we  ought  not  to  question. 

I  then  asked  him  whether  he  was  not  a  Carmelite  or  Scap- 
ularian,  and  whether  there  were  not  others  present  who  be- 
longed to  the  same  religious  confraternity  ? 

Several  voices  responded  in  the  affirmative. 

I  then  opened  a  little  volume  which  is  much  circulated 
among  the  members  of  the  order ;  and  which  contains  the 
privileges  and  the  indulgences  belonging  to  the  members.  I 
read  the  following  passage  : 

"  John  XXII.,  Sovereign  Pontiff,  found  himself  greatly  har- 
assed by  a  schism  which  the  Emperor  Louis  IV.  wished  to 


402  EVENINGS   WITH   THE    ROMANISTS. 

raise  in  the  Church.  Once  having  risen  early,  according  to 
his  custom,  to  pray,  and  kneeling  devoutly,  his  mind  being 
somewhat  elevated,  there  appeared  to  him  the  glorious  Queen 
of  Heaven.  She  kindly  consoled  him  and  promised  him 
her  protection  and  assistance  against  his  enemy,  enjoining  on 
him  besides,  that  he  should  favor,  confirm,  give  eflScacy  to 
what  she,  the  Mother  of  God,  had  obtained  in  heaven  from 
her  divine  Son,  Jesus  Christ ;  that  he  should  publish  to  all  the 
faithful  the  precious  treasure  of  the  Indulgences  of  the  sacred 
Scapular.  And  that  she  herself,  as  a  most  loving  Mother, 
would  go  down  into  Purgatory  every  Saturday  to  free  such 
saints  as  she  should  find  there,  to  carry  her  holy  habit,  sub- 
joining thereto  the  obligations  which  those  would  be  obliged 
to  perform  who  should  wear  it,  to  merit  so  great  and  so  singu- 
lar a  privilege.  The  whole  is  minutely  related  and  confirmed 
by  John  XXII.  in  a  Bull.  In  this  Bull  the  following  words 
spoken  by  the  Virgin  Mary  to  the  Pontiff"  occur.  From  the 
day  that  they,  ^.  e.,  the  Fathers  and  Brothers  of  the  Order  of 
Mount  Carmel,  depart  from  this  world  and  pass  into  Purga- 
tory, /,  their  Mother,  will  gracioushj  descend  on  the  Saturday 
next  after  their  death,  and  I  will  free  every  one  who  I  shall 
find  in  Purgatory,  and  I  will  conduct  them  to  the  holy  Mount 
of  Eternal  Life."^ 

The  reading  of  all  this  caused  varied  feelings  among  my 
hearers  :  some  of  them  laughed,  while  others,  who  belonged 
to  the  confraternity,  exclaimed  that  it  was  all  as  I  had  read 
it — that  it  was  in  their  own  books,  but  they  seemed  not  to 
divine  my  object  in  the  citation. 

It  is  a  pity,  said  one  of  them  in  an  under-voice  that  savored 

^"  This  Order  of  Carmelites,  or  Scapularians,  is  very  numerous  in  Ire- 
land, embracing  all  the  more  religious  members  of  the  Church  of  Rome, 
among  the  lower  classes.  The  book  from  which  the  foregoing  is  ex- 
tracted, was  printed  in  DubUn  for  the  use  of  the  Order  in  1826,  and 
purchased  by  myself  at  their  office.  I  also  have  since  then  purchased 
it  in  French,  published  in  Paris,  and  in  1841  it  was  pubhshed  in 
Italian  at  Rome.  I  purchased  it  there  in  1845. — A  volume  so  widely 
published  has  some  importance. 


PURGATORY.  403 

of  the  comic — It  is  a  pity  to  die  on  any  clay,  barring  Friday 
night,  if  the  Blessed  Virgin  takes  us  out  on  Saturday. 

The  tone  of  his  voice,  and  the  manner  of  the  man,  had  its 
natural  eft'ect  on  a  people  so  susceptible  of  the  ludicrous,  and  a 
whole  volley  of  odd  things  were  said,  that  could  only  be  said 
in  an  assembly  of  Irish  peasants. 

When  I  succeeded  in  quieting  them,  I  asked,  whether  this 
belief  of  the  Carmelites  or  Scapularians  did  not  imply  that  the 
members  of  the  order  left  Purgatory  for  Heaven,  for  "  eternal 
joy  in  paradise,"  as  is  said  in  one  place,  and  for  "  the  holy 
Mount  of  Eternal  life,"  as  is  stated  in  another,  and  whether 
this  did  not  prove  that  their  souls  can  go  to  heaven  before  the 
day  of  judgment  ? 

This  process  of  reasoning,  though  perhaps  unsatisfactory  to 
some  minds,  was  all-powerful  among  our  hearers  on  this  occa- 
sion. Our  little  friend  who  was  to  lead  the  opposition  was 
himself  a  Carmehte,  and  wore  the  Scapular,  and  he  fell  mar- 
velously  in  the  estimation  of  his  supporters. 

He  was  perfectly  perplexed.  If  I  had  gone  on  arguing 
with  him  in  the  usual  way,  he  would  have  proceeded  with  the 
usual  answer,  as  contained  in  their  controversial  books.  But 
here,  having  admitted  that  all  the  Saints  were  in  Heaven,  and 
that  the  Carmelites  and  Scapularians  would  proceed  to 
Heaven  before  the  day  of  judgment ;  his  argument  failed,  on 
his  own  showing,  as  to  the  necessity  of  a  third  or  middle 
state.  I  felt  that  this  was  the  moment  for  another  mode  of 
dealing  with  the  subject — one  that  I  have  seldom  found  to  fail 
among  Roman  Catholics. 

II.  I  addressed  the  little  leader  of  the  party  gently,  and  said 
that  as  he  had  asked  me  where  were  the  souls  of  the  dead  be- 
tween their  death  and  the  day  of  judgment,  and  as  I  had  an- 
swered him  to  the  best  of  my  power,  so  now  I  thought  that  I 
might  ask  him  the  very  same  question — Where  are  the  souls 
of  the  righteous  between  their  death  and  the  day  of  judg- 
ment ? 

The  whole  of  our  hearers  declared  that  this  was  fair — that 
he  must  answer  me. 


404  EVENINGS   WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

He  answered  without  hesitation — in  a  third  place — Pur- 
gatory. 

But,  said  I,  my  question  refers  to  the  interval  between  their 
release  from  Purgatory  and  the  day  of  judgment.  Where  are 
they  after  their  release  from  the  third  place — after  their  re- 
lease from  Purgatory  ?  In  the  Catechism  of  the  Council  of 
Trent,  it  is  said  that  they  remain  in  Purgatory  only  a  "  stated 
time."  And  my  question  is,  as  to  where  they  are  after  that 
stated  time  is  completed  ? 

There  was  no  answer ;  and  the  silence  had  more  effect  on 
my  hearers  than  any  eloquence. 

I  then  reminded  them  that  they  offer  masses  to  relieve  the 
souls  in  Purgatory — that  they  purchase  masses,  and  give  en- 
dowments, and  make  bequests  to  release  the  souls  from  Pur- 
gatory— that  convents  and  friaries  and  monasteries  and 
churches  and  cathedrals  have  been  founded  and  endowed  in 
order  to  have  masses  offered  to  release  the  souls  in  Purgatory 
— that  Purgatorian  societies  are  very  extensively  established, 
through  which,  on  the  payment  of  certain  subscriptions,  the 
souls  of  friends  and  relatives  are  released  by  masses  from  Pur- 
gatory. Now  we  ask — what  becomes  of  those  souls,  for  which 
all  these  masses  are  offered,  and  by  which  they  are  released 
from  Purgatory — what  becomes  of  them,  and  where  are  they 
from  the  day  of  their  release  to  the  day  of  judgment  ?  If  they 
are  still  in  this  third  place  called  Purgatory,  after  all  the 
money  that  has  been  paid,  then  are  the  monks  and  friars  and 
priests  of  Rome,  the  worst  defrauders  the  world  has  ever  seen ; 
for  as  defrauding  is  described  as  raising  money  under  false 
pretenses,  these  men  raise  money  in  order  by  masses  to  release 
the  souls  from  Purgatory,  whereas,  according  to  this,  they  are 
never  released  at  all !  But,  if  they  are  released  from  Purga- 
tory, then,  I  ask,  where  are  they  from  the  day  of  their  release 
to  the  day  of  judgment  ? 

I  have  often  seen  my  opponents  amusingly  perplexed  by 
this  inquiry.  They  said  at  first,  that  the  souls  were  removed 
to  heaven.  And  when  I  reminded  them  of  their  previous 
argument,  that  souls  could  not  enter  heaven  till  after  the  day 


PURGATORY.  405 

of  judgment,  they  retraced  their  steps,  and  told  me  that  these 
souls  were  in  another  region,  not  of  suffering  like  Purgatory, 
nor  glorious  like  heaven — a  fourth  place  ! 

And  thus  the  difficulty  involved  in  their  question  to  us,  en- 
tangled themselves  far  more,  for  they  were  obliged  to  admit, 
that  during  the  interval  they  are  in  some  other  region — some 
fourth  region — which  is  not  Purgatory,  but  in  which  they  live 
in  all  the  happiness  of  disembodied  spirits. 

But  I  have  further  asked — where  are  the  souls  of  the 
wicked,  according  to  their  principles,  during  the  interval  be- 
tween the  death  and  the  judgment?  There  is  no  Purgatory 
for  them  ;  and  therefore  I  asked — where  are  they  during  this 
interval !  I  have  asked  this  question  a  hundred  times  of  the 
advocates  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  I  never  yet  could  ob- 
tain an  answer.  They  will  not  say  that  they  are  transferred 
immediately  to  hell,  without  waiting  for  the  resurrection-day  ; 
for  that  would  supply  us  with  an  argument  from  analogy,  to 
prove  the  righteous  are  in  like  manner  translated  imme- 
diately to  heaven,  without  waiting  for  the  resurrection-morn. 
They  will  not  say  that  they  are  in  Purgatory  ;  *for  that  would 
imply  that  the  damned  are  undergoing  a  purgation  for 
Heaven,  and  would  finally  be  saved.  And  if  they  are  neither 
in  Purgatory  nor  in  Hell,  where  are  they  ?  So  that,  in  what- 
ever light  we  view  this  question — where  are  the  souls  of  the 
dead  during  the  interval  between  the  day  of  death  and  the 
day  of  judgment  ?  it  is  certain,  that  however  they  had  hoped 
by  it  to  have  entangled  us,  it  has  entangled  themselves  in  ten- 
fold more  inextricable  difficulties.  If  it  compels  us  to  suppose 
(as  it  does  not),  in  addition  to  Heaven  and  Hell,  the  existence 
of  a  third  region  as  a  receptacle  of  the  soul  fi'om  the  day  of 
death  to  the  day  of  judgment,  it  will  compel  them  to  suppose 
a  fourth  region  as  a  receptacle  of  the  souls  of  the  righteous 
from  the  day  of  their  release  from  Purgatory  to  the  day  of 
judgment ;  and  additionally  to  this,  a  fifth  region  as  a  recep- 
tacle of  the  wicked  from  the  day  of  death  to  the  day  of 
judgment ! 

In  the  present  conversation,  I  took  care  to  lead  to  this, 


406  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

with  the  view  of  setting  it  before  the  Roman  Catholics  pres- 
ent. After  therefore  I  had  asked — Where  are  the  souls  of  the 
wicked  between  their  death  and  the  day  of  judgment  ?  and 
received  no  reply,  I  said,  that  on  his  own  showing,  there 
must  be  not  only  a  middle  or  third  place,  but  seven  places. 

1.  I  asked  him  whether,  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  they  did 
not  believe  in  a  Purgatory,  where  the  souls  of  the  righteous 
depart  for  their  purification  ?     This  is  one  region. 

2.  Again,  I  asked  whether  they  do  not  suppose  there  is 
then  a  place  where  the  souls  of  the  righteous  depart  after  the 
Masses  have  released  them  from  Purgatory,  and  where  they 
remain  till  the  day  of  judgment  ?  This  is  the  second  region. 
My  opponent  at  once  assented  to  this. 

3.  I  then  asked  whether  they  do  not  suppose  there  is 
next  a  heaven,  whereunto  the  souls  of  the  righteous  enter  on 
the  judgmen.t-day  ?  This  is  the  third  region.  They  assented 
to  this  also. 

4.  Again,  I  asked  whether  they  do  not  further  suppose  that 
there  is  a  place  for  the  souls  of  the  wicked,  where  they  re- 
main from  the  day  of  death  to  the  day  of  judgment,  different 
from  the  Purgatory  of  the  righteous.  This  is  the  fourth 
place.     This  was  assented  to. 

5.  And  lastly,  I  have  asked  whether  they  do  not  then  sup- 
pose there  is  a  Hell,  where  the  wicked  are  cast  after  the  judg- 
ment of  the  last  day.  There  is  the  fifth  region.  This  was 
at  once  acknowledged. 

It  thus  appears,  I  concluded,  that  on  the  principles  of  the 
Church  of  Rome  there  must  not  only  be  three,  but  five  re- 
gions in  the  spiritual  world,  and  that,  where  they  had  hoped 
to  entangle  me  they  were  inextricably  entangled  themselves  ; 
and  besides  these,  the  catechism  of  the  Council  of  Ti-ent  de- 
scribes two  other  places,  under  the  names  of  Limhus  Patrum, 
where  rested  the  souls  of  the  Old  Testament  worthies,  and  of 
Limhus  Infantum,  where  rest  the  souls  of  little  children.  We^ 
I  added,  on  our  principles,  can  at  once  cut  the  Gordian  knot, 
for  we  hold  that  the  souls  of  the  righteous  are  in  Heaven, 
enjoying  there  all  the  happiness  of  v/hich  such  disembodied 


PURGATORY.  407 

spirits  are  capable,  and  waiting  there  for  re-imiou  with  their 
glorified  bodies,  in  order  to  obtain  a  capacity  for  all  the  flood 
of  glory  that  awaits  them  ;  and  we  hold,  on  the  other  hand, 
that  the  souls  of  the  wicked  are  in  Hell,  as  was  said  of  Dives 
in  the  parable,  "  in  Hell  he  lifted  up  his  eyes,  being  in  tor- 
ment," suffering  there  all  that  disembodied  spirits  are  capable 
of,  and  are  reserved  there  for  re-union  with  their  resurrection 
bodies,  in  order  to  the  endurance  of  their  destiny  of  woe. 

While  stating  this  argument,  especially  when  specifying 
the  several  regions — the  seven  regions  instead  of  Heaven  and 
jjell — there  was  a  play  of  countenance  among  the  Protestants 
present,  which  showed  a  lively  sense  of  the  ludicrous.  They 
felt  that  the  tables  were  completely  turned  on  our  httle  friend, 
and  that  where  he  thought  to  have  puzzled  me  by  his  favor- 
ite questions,  he  was  himself  inextricably  perplexed.  The 
feeling  among  the  Roman  Catholics  was  of  more  importance 
— it  was  a  varied  one.  But  I  believe  that  it  was  universally 
thouo-ht  that  it  had  been  fiir  better  for  his  cause  that  our 
little  friend  had  never  asked  his  question.  Among  some  of 
them,  there  was  great  thoughtfulness  and  gravity.  Among 
others,  there  was  an  appearance  of  bitterness  and  disappoint- 
ment ;  while  the  keen  sense  of  the  ludicrous,  so  characteristic 
of  the  peasantry,  found  vent  in  some  pleasant  sallies  at  his  ex- 
pense. 

I  saw  that  my  object  was  well-nigh  gained,  as  much  so  as 
I  could  have  anticipated ; — that  the  partisans  of  the  Church 
of  Rome  were  silenced,  if  not  convinced  ; — and  I  resolved  to 
improve  the  occasion  by  a  more  useful  and  profitable  mode  of 
deahng  with  the  subject.  I  therefore  changed  my  manner — ■ 
asked  their  serious  and  calm  attention,  and  then  went  over  the 
process  of  argument  given  in  a  former  conversation,  setting 
forth  the  power  of  the  blood  of  Christ  for  the  remission  of  all 
our  sins,  and  showing  from  the  Holy  Scriptures,  that  His 
sufierings  and  death  were  the  atoning  sacrifice  for  all  who 
believed :  and  that,  therefore,  there  was  no  need  of  the  fire  of 
Purgatory.  This  gave  me  an  opportunity  of  setting  forth  the 
great  truths  of  the  Gospel;  and  I  am  bound  to  say  that  the 


408  EVENINGS   WITH   THE    ROMANISTS. 

Roman  Catholics  present  listened  with  reverent  attention  to 
those  glorious  truths.  I  could  not  have  desired  a  more  atten- 
tive or  absorbed  congregation.  And  some  there  were,  who 
seemed  at  the  time  completely  melted  and  subdued  under  the 
love  of  Christ. 


THE  SUPREMACY  OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  ROME. 

The  Ideal  of  the  Church  of  Christ— Of  the  Church  of  Eoma— The  twofold  Vicariate 
temporal  over  nations,  and  spiritual  over  Churches— Her  Claim  as  Mother  and 
Mistress  of  all  Churches— Untrue  as  a  Matter  of  Fact— Whether  St.  Peter  or 
Christ  be  the  Eook— Matthew  xvi.  13— How  this  concerns  the  Roman  Church— 
Whether  St.  Peter  was  Bishop  of  Rome— Whether  any  Supremacy  is  secured  by 
this  to  the  Roman  Church— Whether  St.  Peter  alone  was  to  feed  the  Flock- 
John  xxi.  15— The  true  Head  of  the  Church  is  Christ— Whether  He  needs  a  Vi- 
car on  Earth. 

The  ideal  of  the  Church  of  Christ  is  grand  and  magnificent. 
It  is  this ; — that  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  has  passed  away  into 
heaven ; — that  having  ascended  into  lieaveu  He  is  there  en- 
throned,  first  as  the  King  of  kings,  and  so  possessing  all 
authority  over  and  above  all  the  kingdoms  of  earth ;  and  then, 
as  the  High  Priest  of  His  Church,  and  so  invested  with 
authority  over  all  Churches  upon  earth ; — that,  in  keeping 
with  both  these  prerogatives,  it  was  prophesied  that  the  king- 
doms of  the  earth  should  become  the  kingdoms  of  the  Lord, 
and  that  all  people  should  come  and  worship  before  him  ; — 
and  that  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  in  the  heavens  is  thus  the 
King  of  kings  and  the  High  Priest — the  King-Priest  of  the 
world. 

In  all  this  part  of  the  ideal  the  Protestant  Christian  and  the 
Roman  Catholic  are  in  accord.  It  is  at  the  next  stage  or 
platform  of  the  splendid  edifice  that  we  separate. 

The  Romanists,  in  their  ideal  of  the  Church,  hold  that  our 
Lord  being  in  heaven,  requires  a  Deputy  or  Vicar  to  represent 
him,  and  bear  His  office  on  earth ;  and  that  He  has  appointed 
the  Bishop  of  Rome  as  His  Vicar.  It  is  apparent  that,  as 
such,   the    Vicariate   represents  not  only  His  oflSce  as  High 

18 


410  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

Priest^  but  His  office  as  King  of  kings — not  only  the  spiritual 
authority  over  the  Church,  but  the  temporal  authority  over 
the  kingdoms  of  the  earth. 

This  is  the  true  ideal  of  the  Church  of  Rome ; — that  the 
Bishop  of  Rome,  being  the  Vicar  of  Christ,  possesses  the 
authority  of  Christ  on  earth — an  authority  extending  over  the 
temporal  kingdoms  as  well  as  over  the  spiritual  Churches.  It 
is  true  that  this  Vicariate  has  of  later  years  been  divested  of 
nearly  one  half  of  its  original,  namely,  the  temporal  power  of 
Christ ;  but  it  was  universally  recognized  in  the  middle  ages  ; 
and  even  long  after  the  Reformation,  was  recognized  among 
the  states  still  adhering  to  the  Church  of  Rome.  It  was  in 
the  exercise  of  this  supposed  Vicariate  of  the  temporal  power 
of  Christ,  that  the  Pope  deposed  sovereigns  and  appointed 
kings  at  his  will ;  and  required  of  them  to  raise  their  armies 
and  carry  on  wars  for  the  purposes  he  prescribed.  It  was  in 
the  exercise  of  this  claim  that  he  pronounced  the  deposition 
of  Henry  VIH.  and  declared  his  dethronement  of  Queen 
Elizabeth.  It  was  in  the  exercise  of  this  claim  he  ceded,  by 
a  mere  grant  of  his  own  will,  the  crown  and  kingdom  of 
Ireland  to  Henry  11.  of  England  ;  and  in  after  times,  gave,  by 
a  free  grant  from  himself,  the  crown  and  realm  of  England  at 
one  time  to  the  King  of  Spain,  and  at  another  time  to  the 
King  of  France  ;  and  that  he  took  the  crown  and  realm  of 
England  from  King  John,  and  then  restored  them  as  gifts 
from  himself.  It  was  in  the  exercise  of  this  assumed  offic6 
that  the  Pope  ceded  all  the  East  Indies  as  a  possession  to  the 
King  of  Portugal,  and  in  like  manner  granted  all  the  West 
Indies  as  a  free  gift  to  the  King  of  Spain.  •  The  principle  on 
which  these  grants  were  made,  and  this  power  claimed  is  ex- 
pressly stated  in  the  papal  Bulls,  namely,  "  that  to  the  Vicar 
of  Christ  and  successor  to  St.  Peter,  belongs  every  land  on 
which  the  Sun  of  righteousness  has  shone." 

All  this  portion,  however,  of  the  idea  is  passed  away. 
While  the  temporal  powers  of  Europe  were  petty  dukedoms 
and  baronies,  ever  at  war  with  each  other,  the  Roman  Pontiff 
was  able  to  control  them.     He  freely  deposed  one  and  ap- 


THE  SUPREMACY  OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  ROME.     411 

pointed  another,  and  by  absolving  the  oaths  of  allegiance  in 
one  case,  and  promising  a  cession  of  territory  in  another,  he 
was  able  to  make  his  power  felt  throughout  Europe.  When, 
however,  these  petty  states  became  absorbed  into  larger  and 
mightier  kingdoms,  the  sovereigns  became  conscious  of  their 
powers,  and  gradually  shook  oif  this  temporal  authority  of  the 
Popes,  and  the  result  has  been,  that  universally  this  assumption 
of  being  the  Vicar  of  Christ  in  His  office  as  King  of  kings, 
has  been  denied  and  rejected  by  every  state  in  Europe.  The 
temporal  scepter  has  thus  passed  from  the  Pontifical  hand. 

The  Church  of  Rome,  therefore,  now  comes  before  us 
speaking  no  longer  of  her  temporal  Vicariate,  but  only  of  her 
spiritual  Vicariate,  and  proclaims  herself  the  mother  and 
mistress  of  all  Churches. 

The  following  are  the  words  of  her  Creed,  "  I  acknowledge 
the  Holy  Cathohc  and  Apostolic  Roman  Church,  the  mother 
and  mistress  of  all  Churches,  and  I  promise  and  swear  true 
obedience  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  the  successor  of  St.  Peter, 
Prince  of  the  Apostles,  and  Vicar  of  Jesus  Christ.^'' 

When  reasoning  on  this  article  of  her  creed,  I  have  stated 
that  this  was  a  question  of  fact — not  a  question  of  remote  re- 
search or  abstract  reasoning  or  refined  learning,  but  simply  a 
question  of  fact,  and  must  be  determined  as  all  other  questions 
of  fact.  I  have  therefore  asked — Is  it  a  fact  that  the  Church 
of  Rome  is  the  mother  Church  of  Christendom  ?  It  is  evident 
from  the  Holy  Scriptures,  that  the  Church  of  Jerusalem,  not 
the  Church  of  Rome,  is  the  mother  of  all  Churches — that 
our  Lord  commenced  His  Church  at  Jerusalem — that  He  com-' 
.manded  His  disciples  to  go  through  the  cities  of  Judah  alone  !| 
to  preach  His  Gospel,  and  lay  the  foundations  of  His  Church  '' 
— that  He  specially  directed  His  apostles  to  remain  at  Jerusa- 
lem, until  the  Holy  Ghost  should  descend  upon  them,  and 
give  them  power  ;  and  accordingly  they  there  waited  till  the 
power  came,  and  they  were  enabled  to  preach,  and  "  the  Lord 
added  to  the  Church  them  that  should  be  saved" — that  thus 
the  Gospel  was  first  preached,  and  the  Church  first  formed  at 
Jerusalem  ;  and  so,  when  the  apostles  went  every  where  found- 


412  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

ing  the  claurches,  they  returned  to  Jerusalem  to  consult  as  to 
the  controversies  that  arose — that  this  Church  of  Jerusalem 
was  thus  the  first  Church — was  that  from  which  all  the  others 
have  sprung,  and  so  she  is  the  mother  Church  of  all  Christen- 
dom ;  and  therefore  it  is  not  a  fact,  but  a  clear  and  certain  un- 
truth, that  the  Church  of  Rome  is  the  mother  of  all  churches. 
The  apostle  Peter  first  opened  the  Gospel  and  founded  the 
Church  of  Jerusalem ;  if  afterward  he  founded  the  Church  of 
Rome,  then  on  their  own  showing,  it  is — painful  and  strong  as 
the  word  may  be — a  known  and  positive  falsehood  on  the  face 
of  her  creed,  to  say  the  Church  of  Rome  is  "  the  mother  of 

ALL  churches." 

To  this  when  I  have  conversed  with  Roman  Catholics,  they 
have  never  made  a  reply  beyond  the  suggestion,  that  there 
was  probably  some  other  and  diflerent  meaning  for  the  phrase, 
when  the  article  was  determined. 

I  have  answered  this,  by  saying,  we  must  interpret  the  lan- 
guage of  the  creed  in  its  simplest  and  obvious  sense — that  the 
article  did  not  pause  with  this  untruth,  but  proceeded  with 
another,  namely,  that  the  Church  of  Rome  is  "  the  mistress 
of  all  churches ;"  if  by  this  language  it  is  meant  to  convey  that 
she  ought  to  be,  or  that  she  wishes  to  be  mistress  of  all 
churches,  it  is  intelligible,  though  not  very  modest.  As  the 
article  at  present  stands,  it  is  untrue.  It  is  untrue  as  a  simple 
question  of  fact.  She  is  not  the  mistress  of  all  churches.  She 
is  not  the  mistress  of  the  English,  the  American,  the  Swedish, 
the  Dutch,  the  Danish,  the  Prussian,  the  Greek,  the  Russian 
the  Asiatic  Churches.  The  majority,  the  numerical  majority 
of  the  professing  Christians  of  the  world  reject  and  deny  her 
authority.  The  Eastern  Churches,  the  Greek  Churches,  the 
Protestant  Churches  deny  her  authority.  They  all  hold  their 
own  independence,  and  reject  the  pretensions  on  her  part  to 
authority  over  them.  They  reject  with  one  voice  her  pre- 
tended Vicariate  of  Jesus  Christ.  It  is  therefore  a  broad  and 
plain  untruth  inserted  as  an  article  of  the  creed  of  the  Church 
of  Rome  ! 

To  this  it  is  sometimes  answered  that  she  does  not  regard 


THE  SUEREMACT  OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  ROME.     413 

these  as  churches  at  all — that  they  are  out  of  the  pale  of 
Christendom ;  and  that  she  speaks  in  her  creed  only  of  those 
who  are  in  communion  with  herself,  and  who  can  only  be  re- 
garded by  her  as  true  churches  ;  and  that  all  she  intends  in 
the  article  of  her  creed  is  that  she  is  a  mother  and  a  mistress, 
not  of  all  the  churches,  but  only  of  those  which  are  in  com- 
munion with  her. 

I  replied,  that  evidently  this  was  not  the  intention  of  her 
creed.  Her  object  was  that  at  a  time,  when  so  many  na- 
tional churches,  as  Germany,  Sweden,  Holland,  Switzerland, 
England,  broke  away  from  her  authority,  she  might  still 
assert  her  authority  over  them,  claiming,  as  she  still  does, 
authority  over  all  baptized  persons  as  her  subjects.  This 
was  apparently  her  object,  as  it  is  involved  in  the  supposed 
supremacy  of  Saint  Peter,  and  of  the  popes,  his  supposed  suc- 
cessors. 

It  is  here  the  advocates  of  Rome  think  themselves  able  to 
take  their  stand.  Forced  from  every  other  ground  of  argu- 
ment on  which  they  would  urge  her  claim  as  the  mother  and 
mistress  of  all  churches,  and  driven  back  bewildered  and 
broken,  by  the  charge  of  inserting  two  plain  and  admitted  un- 
truths in  her  creed,  they  invariably  fall  back  upon  the  asser- 
tion of  the  supremacy  of  St.  Peter,  and  the  popes  his  supposed 
successors.- 

In  my  intercourse  with  Ptoman  Catholics  there  was  no  ques- 
tion so  frequently  discussed,  and  none  on  which  at  first  they  had 
such  unbounded  confidence,  as  this  question  of  the  supremacy 
of  St.  Peter,  and  of  the  Church  of  Rome. 

In  justification  of  this  assertion,  they  adduce  one  Scripture. 
The  whole  superstructure  of  Roman  supremacy  with  all  the 
claims  and  assumptions  dependent  on  it,  is  erected  on  that 
one  Scripture ;  and  therefore  seeing  that  it  has  to  support 
on  its  single  shoulder  the  whole  Atlas  of  Romanism,  it  ought 
asssuredly  to  be  clear — strong — decisive.  When,  however, 
we  examine  this  we  find  that  it  does  not  advance  them  one 
hair's  breadth  in  the  r  argument ;  and  that  they  might  as  well 
hope  to  suspend  the  Vatican  in  the  air  by  a  spider's  web,  as 


414  EVENINGS    WITH   THE   ROMANISTS. 

hope  to  support  tlie  superstructure  of  Romanism  on  such  a 
passage  as  this. 

The  words  are  in  Matt.  xvi.  13  : — "  When  Jesus  came  into 
the  coasts  of  Cesarea  Philippi,  He  asked  His  disciples,  saying, 
Whom  do  men  say  that  I,  the  Son  of  Man,  am  ?  And  they 
said,  Some  say  that  thou  art  John  the  Baptist :  some,  Elias  ; 
and  others,  Jeremias,  or  one  of  the  prophets.  He  saith  unto 
them,  But  whom  say  ye  that  I  am?  And  Simon  Peter 
answered  and  said,  Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living 
God.  And  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  him,  Blessed  art 
thou,  Simon  Bar-jona :  for  flesh  and  blood  hath  not  revealed 
it  unto  thee,  but  My  Father  which  is  in  heaven.  And  I  say 
also  unto  thee,  That  thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  I  will 
build  My  Church,  and  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail 
aofainst  it."  Their  argument  on  these  words  is,  that  our  Lord 
here  constituted  St.  Peter  as  the  rock  or  foundation  of  the 
Church  of  Christ — that  St.  Peter  was  the  founder  and  first 
Bishop  of  the  Church  of  Rome — and  that  he  granted  the  privi- 
leofes  of  the  Church  of  Christ  to  the  Church  of  Rome  forever. 

This  argument,  it  is  apparent,  consists  of  three  distinct 
parts  or  propositions.  It  is  a  chain  consisting  of  three  links. 
On  this  chain  the  whole  system  of  Roman  supremacy  and 
Roman  authority  is  suspended.  It  well  behooves  these  hnks 
to  be  strong,  when  they  are  to  support  so  vast  a  burden. 
The  slightest  defect  or  weakness  in  any  one  would  be  the  de- 
struction of  all. 

No  one  has  been  much  in  conversation  with  Romanists 
without  being  often  reminded  of  this  Scripture,  as  if  they 
never  thought  it  capable  of  any  other  interpretation ;  and  as 
if  surprised  at  any  question  being  raised  respecting  it.  They 
seem  really  and  honestly  to  believe  that  it  is  sufiicient  to 
justify  all  the  claims  of  the  Church  of  Rome. 

I  have  asked  my  friends  to  state  logically,  or  at  least  pre- 
cisely, the  nature  of  their  argument  from  it. 

It  was  accordingly  said  that  Jesus  Christ — before  returning 
to  heaven — appointed  Peter  as  the  rock  upon  whom  His 
Church  was  to  be  built ; — that  therefore  the  Church  of  whicb 


THE    SUPREMACY    OF   THE    CHURCH    OF    ROME.  415 

Peter  was  bishop,  must  be  alone  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ 
— that  this  Church  was  the  Church  of  Rome. 

I  said  in  reply,  that  this  argument  involved  several  proposi- 
tions, each  of  which  was  questionable  in  itself,  and  I  suggested 
our  examiniuff  them  seriatim. 

I,  The  first  proposition — the  first  link  in  the  chain — was 
that  our  Lord  appointed  that  the  Church  should  be  built  on 
Peter  as  on  a  rock,  according  to  the  words,  "  Thou  art  Peter 
• — and  upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my  Church,  etc." 

I  said  that  I  questioned  this  statement  altogether — I  said 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  was  himself  the  rock  upon  which  His 
Church  was  built,  and  that  it  was  a  palpable  misinterpretation 
of  this  Scripture  to  suppose  it  was  Peter.  I  then  argued  as 
follows. 

Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  frequently  described  in  Old  Testa- 
ment Scriptures  under  the  figure  of  a  rock  or  a  stone.  On 
the  one  hand  He  is  called  "  the  Stone  laid  in  Zion" — Isa. 
xxviii.  16,  and  the  "Corner-stone,"  and  the  "Stone  of  stum- 
bling." On  the  other  hand  He  is  called  "  the  Rock  of  Salva- 
tion," and  "the  Rock  of  our  strength,"  and  "our  strong 
Rock."  Both  these  terms  are  applied  to  Him  in  a  vast  varie- 
ty of  places,  and  are  designed  to  point  out  to  us  that  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Sou  of  the  living  God,  is  the  foundation 
of  our  hope  and  the  ground  of  our  salvation.  It  is  in  this 
spirit  that  David  says,  "  the  Lord  is  my  Rock  and  my  Fort- 
ress and  Deliverer ;  the  God  of  my  Rock,  in  Him  will  I  trust." 
And  again,  "  Who  is  God  save  the  Lord  ?  and  who  is  a  Rock 
save  our  God  ?"  And,  again,  "  The  Lord  liveth,  and  blessed 
be  my  Rock,  and  exalted  be  the  God  of  the  Rock  of  my 
salvation" — 2  Sam.  xxii.  32-47.  And  in  the  same  way  Moses 
sings,  "  Ascribe  ye  greatness  unto  our  God  ;  He  is  the  Rock, 
His  work  is  perfect,  and  all  His  ways  are  judgment." — Deut. 
xxxii.  4. 

Such  a  use  of  these  terms,  pointing  to  Jesus  as  the  solid 
and  firm  foundation  of  His  Church  and  people,  occurring  so 
frequently  in  the  Old  Testament,  prepares  us  for  a  similar  use 
of  them  in  the  New  Testament  Scriptures.     Accordingly  our 


416  EVENINGS   WITH   THE    KOMANISTS. 

blessed  Lord  uses  tlie  following  language !  "  Jesus  saitli  unto 
them,  Did  ye  never  read  in  the  Scriptures,  The  stone  which 
the  builders  rejected,  the  same  is  become  the  head  of  the 
corner :  this  is  the  Lord's  doing,  and  it  is  marvelous  in  our 
eyes  ?"  This  was  spoken  of  Himself,  who,  under  the  figure 
of  the  son  in  the  parable,  was  rejected  by  the  husbandmen, 
and  was  to  be  avenged  upon  those  who  thus  acted.  And 
thus  our  Lord  apphes  this  term  to  Himself.  St.  Paul  gives  it 
the  same  application,  "  Ye  are  built  upon  the  foundation  of 
the  apostles  and  prophets,  Jesus  Christ  Himself  being  the 
chief  corner-stone ;  in  whom  all  the  building,  fitly  framed 
together,  groweth  unto  an  holy  temple  in  the  Lord." — Eph.  ii. 
20.  This  Scripture  shows  the  full  force  of  the  term,  as  ap- 
plied to  Christ,  implying  that  He  was  the  "  rock,"  which  forms 
the  foundation  of  His  Church ;  as  the "  apostle  says  in 
another  place,  "  as  a  wise  master-builder,  I  have  laid  the  found- 
ation, and  another  buildeth  thereon.  But  let  every  man  take 
heed  how  he  buildeth  thereupon.  For  other  foundation  can 
no  man  lay  than  that  is  laid,  which  is  Jesus  Christ." — 1  Cor. 
iii.  10,  11. 

It  is  not  easy  to  conceive  how  such  plain  Scriptures  should 
not  be  deemed  adequate  to  prove  Jesus  Christ  to  be  the  Stone 
or  "  Eock,"  which  forms  the  foundation  of  the  Church.  There 
is  scarcely  a  place  in  all  the  Scriptures,  that  does  not  assist  in 
illustrating  that  gi'eat  truth.  And  yet  it  is  held  in  the  Church 
of  Rome,  that  St.  Peter,  and  not  Christ,  is  the  "  Rock."  It  is 
happy,  however,  that  we  have  St.  Peter's  own  judgment  upon 
this;  fi-om  which  we  learn  that  so  far  from  claiming  this 
honor  to  himself,  he  ascribes  it  altogether  to  Christ.  The 
Scripture  to  which  I  refer,  is  as  follows : — "  Wherefore,  also, 
it  is  contained  in  the  Scripture,  Behold  I  lay  in  Sion  a  chief 
corner-stone,  elect,  precious ;  and  he  that  believeth  on  Him, 
shall  not  be  confounded.  Unto  you  therefore,  which  believe. 
He  is  precious;  but  unto  them  which  be  disobedient,  the 
stone  which  the  builders  disallowed,  the  same  is  made  the 
head  of  the  comer,  and  a  stone  of  stumbling,  and  a  rock  of 
ofiense,  even  to  them  which  stumble  at  the  word,  being  disc- 


THE    SUPREMACY    OF   THE    CHURCH    OF    ROME.  4lY 

bediont." — 1  Pet.  ii.  6-8.  In  these  words,  the  Apostle  Peter 
cites  two  predictions.  One  is — "  Therefore  thus  saith  the 
Lord  God,  Behold  I  lay  in  Zion  for  a  foundation,  a  Stone,  a 
tried  stone,  a  precious  corner-stone,  a  sure  foundation  ;  he  that 
believeth  shall  not  make  haste." — Isa.  xxviii.  16.  This  Scrip- 
ture is  expressly  applied  by  St.  Peter  to  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ ; 
thus  giving  to  us  his  sanction  for  saying,  that  Christ  is  the 
"Foundation"  and  "Stone."  The  other  is — "He  shall  be 
for  a  sanctuary ;  but  for  a  stone  of  stumbling,  and  for  a  rock 
of  offense." — Isa.  viii.  14.  This  Scripture  is  also  expressly 
applied  by  St.  Peter  to  the  Lord ;  thus  giving  his  authority 
for  believing  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  indeed  the  "  Stone"  and 
the  "  Rock"  of  which  the  Holy  Scriptures  speak. 

This  is  a  point  of  some  interest ;  for  the  whole  argument  of 
the  Church  of  Rome  depends  on  the  position  that  St.  Peter, 
and  not  Christ,  is  the  "Stone"  or  "  Rock"  upon  which  the 
Church  is  built.  Now  here  we  have  the  express  judgment  of 
St.  Peter  on  this  very  point ;  for  here  he  himself  plainly  as- 
cribes it  to  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  This  enables  us  to  deal 
with  that  only  Scripture,  to  which  the  advocates  of  Rome 
refer. — "  When  Jesus  came  into  the  coasts  of  Cesarea  Philippi, 
He  asked  Ilis  disciples,  saying.  Whom  do  men  say  that  I,  the 
Son  of  Man,  am  ?  And  they  said,  Some  say  that  thou  art 
John  the  Baptist ;  some,  Elias ;  and  others,  Jeremias,  or  one 
of  the  prophets.  He  saith  unto  them,  But  whom  say  ye  that 
I  am  ?  And  Simon  Peter  answered  and  said,  Thou  art  the 
Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God.  And  Jesus  answered 
and  said  unto  him.  Blessed  art  thou,  Simon  Bar-jona ;  for 
flesh  and  blood  hath  not  revealed  it  unto  thee,  but  My  Father 
which  is  in  Heaven.  And  I  say  also  unto  thee,  that  thou  art 
Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my  Church,  and  the 
gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it." — Matt.  xvi.  13-18. 

In  these  words  we  find  St.  Peter  making  a  true  confession  : 
— "  Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God." 
These  words  are  the  key  to  the  whole  passage.  This  great 
and  glorious  truth  is  the  foundation  of  all  Christianity.  K 
this  be  true,  then  all  is  true.     If  this  be  false,  then  all  is  false. 


418  EVENINGS    WITH   TflE    ROMANISTS. 

This  is  the  great  fundamental  truth — the  truth  firm  as  "  the 
Rock  of  ages" — the  truth  upon  which  the  whole  Church  of 
Christ  is  built.  It  is,  that  Jesus  is  "  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the 
livlufy  God."  When,  therefore,  the  apostle  had  uttered  this 
great  truth — when  he  had  spoken  this  true  confession,  our 
Lord  arrests  his  words,  and  says,  "  Upon  this  Rock" — upon 
tJds  truth  which  is  firm  as  a  rock — upon  this  fact,  that  I  am 
the  Messiah,  the  Son  of  the  living  God — upon  this  which  the 
Spirit  of  God  hath  revealed  to  you — "upon  this  Rock  I  will 
build  My  Church,  and  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail 
agaiust  it."  This — this  is  the  true  purport  of  the  words  of 
our  Lord  ;  not  making  St.  Peter  the  "  rock,"  but  making  Him- 
self— making  His  own  Messiahsliip — His  own  Sonship  to  the 
living  God  as  the  great  foundation  of  His  Church. 

To  take  any  other  view  of  this  Scripture,  is  to  strike  at  the 
very  foundation  of  the  Church.  It  is  clear  that  the  apostles 
never  understood  them  as  ceding  a  supremacy  to  Peter,  for 
immediately  afterward,  chap,  xviii.  verse  1,  we  find  them  dis- 
puting which  of  them  w^is  to  be  the  greatest !  This  dispute 
could  never  have  arisen,  if  the  apostles  had  believed  that  our 
Lord's  words  conferred  supremacy  on  Peter.  The  thing 
would  have  been  impossible.  And  to  interpret  it  with  the 
advocates  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  would  be  against  the  words 
themselves.  Our  Lord's  w^ords  are — "  Thou  art  Peter,  and 
upon  this  rock  I  will  build  My  Church."  The  word  "  this" 
must  clearly  refer  to  the  great  truth,  which  had  thus  been 
spoken,  and  could  not  possibly  refer  to  St,  Peter  ;  for  as  our 
Lord  was  speaking  to  that  apostle.  He  could  not  have  used 
the  word  "  this"  but  "  thee,"  saying  thou  art  Peter,  and  upon 
thee  do  I  build  my  Church."  But  he  says  nothing  of  the 
kind.  And  as  for  that  which  the  Romanists  allege,  namely, 
that  the  name  of  Peter  is  expressive  of  a  stone,  and  that  our 
Lord,  caught  with  the  allusion  and  playing  on  the  name,  said, 
"  Thou  art  Peter"  (that  is,  a  stone),  "  and  on  this  rock  I  will 
build  My  Church" — it  is  only  accusing  our  Lord  of  a  poor  and 
miserable  pun  upon  the  apostle's  name ;  and  that  at  the  mo- 


THE  SUPREMACY  OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  ROME.     419 

ment  when  he  was  pointing  to  the  one  and  only  foundation 
of  His  Church. 

I  have  found  that  this  exposition  of  this  Scripture  is  new 
to  many  Romanists,  and  I  have  known  several  who  at  once 
received  it  as  far  preferable  to  their  own.  Many  a  mind 
candid  and  sincere,  has  unhesitatingly  adopted  it,  and  thus 
has  been  led  to  the  first  step  of  their  withdrawal  from  the 
Church  of  Rome.  This  exposition  is  common  enough  among 
us,  and  we  think  it  very  strange  that  any  other  should  be 
adopted,  but  it  must  always  be  remembered  that  the  Ro- 
manists are  not  generally  very  conversant  with  the  Scrip- 
tures, and  have  habitually  heard  of  Peter  as  the  rock,  and 
therefore  our  exposition  of  the  words  comes  with  all  the 
appearance  of  novelty  to  their  minds. 

I  have  of  course  been  very  careful  to  show  that  this  re- 
moves altogether  the  foundation  on  which  rests  all  the  claims 
of  the  Church  of  Rome  ;  for  if  one  link  in  the  chain  of  her  ar- 
gument be  that  Peter  was  the  rock,  and  if  it  be  proved  thus 
that  Peter  was  not  the  rock,  the  whole  system  at  once  falls  to 
the  ground.  If  the  Vatican  be  suspended  from  heaven  by  a 
chain  of  three  links,  and  that  this  is  one  of  them,  and  that  this 
has  failed,  the  result  is  inevitable. 

But  there  are  many  Romanists  who  have  contested  with  me 
this  interpretation.  I  can  not  say  that  they  have  ever  ad- 
vanced any  thing  beyond  some  play  upon  the  name  Peter, 
signifying  Cephas  or  a  stone.  And  when  arguing  with  such 
persons  I  have  pressed  on  them — and  indeed  they  generally 
admit  it — that  it  may  be  considered  questionable  and  uncer- 
tain which  is  the  true  meaning — that  it  is  thus  a  very  doubt- 
ful and  uncertain  text  upon  which  good  and  learned  men  may 
fairly  differ — that  the  Fathers  of  the  primitive  Church  difiered 
as  widely  as  ourselves  ;  and  when  they  have  admitted  this,  I 
have  pressed  on  them  the  inference  that  thus  after  all,  on  their 
own  admission,  all  the  claims  of  the  Church  of  Rome  rest  on 
a  Scripture  of  doubtful  and  uncertain  meaning — one  on  which 
good  and  learned  men  may  and  have  diffei'ed! — a  strange 
foundation  for  such  high  claims  as  supremacy  and  infallibility. 


420  EVENINGS    "WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

n.  I  have  tlien  recalled  the  attention  of  my  friends  to  the 
second  proposition — to  that  which  was  the  second  hnk  in  the 
chain — to  the  statement  that  it  was  Peter  who  founded  the 
Church  of  Rome,  and  who  was  the  first  bishop  or  Pope  of 
that  Church. 

I  argued  that  the  proof  of  this  proposition  is  absolutely  ne- 
cessary to  the  argument  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  That  ne- 
cessity will  be  apparent  thus.  Supposing  that  for  argument's 
sake,  we  admit  that  St.  Peter  was  the  "  rock," — supposing 
this,  we  yet  ask,  How  would  that  admission  prove  the  supre- 
macy of  the  Church  of  Rome  ?  How  would  it  prove,  that  the 
Bishop  of  Rome  had  supremacy  over  the  Bishop  of  London, 
any  more  than  that  the  Bishop  of  London  had  supremacy 
over  the  Bishop  of  Rome  ?  How  would  it  prove,  that  the 
Church  of  Italy  had  authority  over  the  Church  of  England, 
any  more  than  the  Church  of  England  had  authority  over  the 
Church  of  Italy  ?  In  this  Scripture  there  is  no  mention  either 
of  Pope  or  of  Bishop,  of  Rome  or  of  London,  of  Italy  or  of 
England.  And  therefore  I  ask,  supposing  we  admit,  that 
Peter  was  the  "  rock,"  how  that  admission  would  prove  the 
supremacy  and  authority  of  the  Church  of  Rome  over  the 
other  Churches  of  Christendom  ? 

They  freely  admitted  in  reply  to  this,  that  their  argument 
required  that  Peter  should  have  been  the  founder  of  the 
Church  of  Rome,  or  at  least  have  been  the  Bishop  of  Rome. 
And  that  therefore,  the  claim  of  supremacy  and  authority,  on 
the  part  of  Rome  is  dependent  on  that  fact — a  fact,  which 
they  said,  was  as  certain  as  any  other  in  history. 

I  replied  that  my  own  faith  rested  exclusively  on  the  Holy 
Scriptures — that  the  statements  of  history  in  general  might  be 
true  or  otherwise,  and  my  belief  or  disbelief  of  such  statements 
did  not  affect  the  salvation  of  my  soul — that  the  statements 
of  Holy  Scripture  were  a  matter  of  faith  with  me,  and  there- 
fore I  asked  whether,  in  so  essential  an  article  of  faith  as  that 
Peter  was  Bishop  of  Rome,  there  was  any  warrant  whatever 
in  the  Holy  Scriptures. 

The  reply  was  a  frank  acknowledgment  that  there  was  noth- 


THE    SUPREMACY    OF   THE    CHURCH    OF   ROME.  421 

ing  iu  the  Holy  Scriptures  to  prove  it — that  as  to  Peter 
having  been  Bishop  of  Rome,  or  even  as  to  his  having  ever 
been  at  Rome,  the  Holy  Scriptures  are  silent.  They  said 
they  were  dependent  for  it  altogether  on  the  tradition  of 
history. 

I  stated  that  this  made  an  article  of  faith  dependent  upon 
the  testimony  of  fallible  historians  !  I  added,  that  I  denied 
altogether  the  statement  as  a  matter  of  history.  I  said 
that  that  was  not  the  occasion  to  enter  on  the  historical  ex- 
amination, but  that  I  would  any  time  undertake  to  make  good, 
two  broad  and  strong  positions.  First,  that  there  is  extant 
no  writer  for  two  hundred  years  after  the  death  of  Christ,  who 
has  asserted  that  Peter  was  the  bishop  of  Rome — and  second, 
that  the  later  writers,  who  mention  it,  derived  it  from  no  ade- 
quate authority,  but  repented  it  one  after  another,  all  deriving 
it  from  an  unauthorized  statement  and  from  a  mistake  as  to 
the  meaning  of  preceding  writers.  These  two  propositions  I 
am  able  to  maintain.  But  at  present,  my  argument  is  connect- 
ed with  the  Scriptures. 

I  reminded  my  friend  that  he  acknowledged  that  in  the 
Scriptures  there  was  no  evidence  v/hatever,  that  Peter  had  been 
Bishop  of  Rome,  or  even  had  ever  been  at  Rome  in  his  life. 
I  then  added,  that  there  was  strong  evidence,  the  strongest 
possible  evidence  of  a  presumptive  kind,  tending  to  prove  the 
contrary. 

I  proceeded  to  state  the  argument  thus. 

In  the  first  place,  we  read  that  it  was  St.  Paul  who  preached 
the  Gospel  at  Rome.  He  v/as  taken  to  that  city  a  prisoner. 
His  arrival  is  detailed  in  the  last  chapters  of  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles.  He  found  some  Christians  there,  his  preaching  to 
them  is  related,  and  then  it  is  added — "  Paul  dwelt  tioo  lohole 
years  in  his  own  hired  house,  and  received  all  that  came  in 
unto  him,  preaching  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  teaching  those 
things  which  concern  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  with  all  confidence 
no  man  foi  bidding  him." — Acts  xxviii.  30,  31.  We  thus 
learn  that  it  was  Paul  and  not  Peter,  who  collected  a  Church 
at  Rome. 


422  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

In  the  second  place,  we  read  tliat  St.  Paul  was  appointed  as 
tte  apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  as  St.  Peter  was  the  apostle  of  the 
Jews.  We  read  this  in  Galatians,  ii.  7  :  "  They  saw  that  the 
Gospel  of  the  uncircumcision  was  committed  unto  me,  as  the 
Gospel  of  ihi  circumcision  was  unto  Peter.  For  He  that 
wrought  effectually  in  Peter  to  the  apostleship  of  the  circum- 
cision, the  same  was  mighty  in  me  toward  the  Gentiles."  St. 
Paul  was  therefore  the  appointed  apostle  to  the  Romans  as 
being  a  Gentile  people.  We  have  evidence  in  the  Scriptures 
that  he  fulfilled  his  office  among  them  ;  we  have  no  evidence 
that  St.  Peter  ever  visited  them  in  his  life. 

In  the  third  place,  St.  Paul  wrote  an  epistle  to  the  Church 
at  Rome,  and  in  the  last  chapter  he  sends  his  salutation  to  all 
the  principal  of  the  Christians  there.  He  specially  mentions 
twenty-eight  persons,  but  sends  no  salutation  to  St.  Peter — 
makes  no  allusion  whatever  to  him — pays  him  no  respect ; 
and  certainly  if  St.  Peter  was  then  at  Rome,  and  especially  if 
he  was  the  Bishop  or  Pope  of  Rome,  an  apostle  like  St.  Paul 
could  scarcely  have  failed  to  send  his  salutation,  or  at  least 
make  some  allusion  to  him,  in  an  epistle  written  to  the  Church 
at  Rome. 

In  the  fourth  place,  Paul,  when  residing  at  Rome,  wrote  his 
epistle  to  the  Colossians.  In  that  epistle,  he  makes  mention 
of  those  Christians  at  Rome,  who  assisted  him  in  the  preach- 
ing of  the  Gospel,  and  comforted  him  in  his  troubles,  when  im- 
prisoned by  the  rulers.  After  mentioning  Tychicus  and  Ones- 
imus,  he  adds,  "  and  Jesus,  which  is  called  Justus,  who  are  of 
the  circumcision  :  these  onli/  are  my  fellow-workers  unto  the 
kingdom  of  God,  which  have  been  a  comfort  unto  me.  Epa- 
phras,  who  is  one  of  you,  a  servant  of  Christ,  saluteth  you,  al- 
ways laboring  fervently  for  you  in  prayers." — Col.  iv.  11. 
These  alone — these  were  the  only  Christians  that  had  courage 
to  stand  by  him  ;  so  that  we  may  conclude  that  either  St.  Pe- 
ter shrank  from  the  cause  of  persecuted  Christianity,  or  that 
he  was  not  the  Bishop  of  Rome  in  the  time  of  St.  Paul. 

In  the  first  place,  th(^  apostle  Paul,  wdiile  residing  at  Rome, 
■wrote  his  second  epistle  to  Timothy.     In  that  epistle  he  alludes 


THE    SUPREMACY    OF    THE    CHURCH    OF    ROME.  423 

to  his  trial  at  Rome  before  the  imperial  authorities ;  and  he 
says  the  Christians  wei'e  so  frightened  that  they  forsook  him  : 
"  At  my  first  answer  no  man  stood  by  me,  but  all  men  forsook 
me  ;  I  pray  God  that  it  may  not  be  laid  to  their  charge." — 2 
Tim.  iv.  16.  Thus  all  forsook  him  in  the  hour  of  peril ;  and 
therefore  either  St.  Peter  was  not  then  Bishop  at  Rome,  or  he 
failed  in  faithfulness,  and  abandoned  the  apostle  in  the  hour 
of  need. 

Here,  I  remarked,  are  five  distinct  evidences,  and  others  of 
a  similar  nature  might  be  added,  which  taken  separately  have 
each  their  own  weight,  and  when  taken  altogether  constitute  a 
very  grave  argument  against  the  assertion  that  Peter  founded 
the  Church  of  Rome,  and  was  the  first  of  its  bishops. 

The  answer  to  this  was  one  for  which  I  was  prepared,  as 
being  so  common  among  the  members  of  the  Church  of  Rome, 
namely,  that  these  Scriptures  did  indeed  prove  that  Peter  was 
not  at  Rome  during  the  time  that  Paul  was  there ;  that  they 
also  prove  satisfactorily  that  Peter  was  not  at  Rome  when  Paul 
wrote  his  epistle  to  the  Romans ;  that  all  these  Scriptures 
therefore  prove,  not  that  Peter  did  not  found  that  Church,  nor 
that  he  never  was  bishop  there,  but  only  that  he  was  not  there 
at  any  time  of  which  we  have  evidence  in  the  sacred  Scripture. 
And  that  in  the  absence  of  Scripture  we  have  the  evidence  of 
history  to  support  the  assertion. 

I  replied  that  this  admission  was  amply  sufficient  for  my 
argument,  namely,  that  at  no  time  alluded  in  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures was  Peter  at  Rome — that  at  no  time  of  which  we  possess 
divine  evidence  was  he  in  that  city — that  consequently,  if  his 
episcopacy  there  is  to  be  believed,  it  must  be,  not  on  divine 
authority,  but  only  on  the  uncertain  evidence  of  ordinary  his- 
torians— that  by  consequence  this  fundamental  principle  of 
Romanism,  this  fundamental  article  of  the  Roman  creed,  was 
based  on  fallible,  not  infallible  writers  !  I  then  reminded  him 
of  what  I  had  previously  stated,  namely,  that  all  these  faUible 
writers  received  their  statement  from  one,  only  one  originally 
— that  they  merely  repeat  his  statement,  and  that  they  did  not 
do  even  this  till  some  two  centuries  after  the  death  of  our 


424  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

Lord.     And  thus  a  second  link  in  the  chain  of  this  argument 
is  defective. 

m.  But  I  reminded  my  friend  that  his  argument  on  the 
place  in  Matt.  xvi.  required  him  to  make  good  another  partic- 
ular— a  third  link  in  the  chain.  It  was  that  Peter — suppos- 
ing him  to  have  been  the  rock,  supreme  and  authoritative  over 
all — did  impart  that  supremacy  to  the  bishops  who  succeeded 
him  in  the  see  of  Rome.  Ordinarily  speaking  it  might  be 
supposed  that  the  authority  and  supremacy  would  have  passed 
naturally  to  the  surviving  apostles,  as  for  example  to  the  apostle 
John.  It  could  scarcely  be  believed  that  it  could  have  passed 
to  Linus,  or  Anacletus,  or  Clement,  or  whosoever  is  to  be  sup- 
posed to  have  succeeded,  and  that  this  person,  of  whose  name 
all  writers  are  uncertain,  assumed  supremacy  and  authority 
over  all  the  surviving  apostles,  and  especially  of  the  beloved 
disciple — St.  John. 

No  answer  was  made  to  this.  It  was  merely  stated  that  the 
facts  were  so. 

I  then  pressed  the  point  at  which  I  was  aiming.  I  said  that 
I  would  for  argument's  sake  suppose  that  Peter  founded  the 
Church  of  Rome  and  was  the  first  bishop  of  that  see ;  but  I 
saw  not  how  that  admission  could  benefit  my  opjionent,  inas- 
much as  all  history  testified  that  Peter  founded  the  Church  of 
Antioch,  and  was  the  first  bishop  of  that  see.  The  first  see 
was  that  of  Antioch ;  the  second  was  that  of  Rome,  and  all 
the  writers  of  the  Church  of  Rome  acknowledge  that  Peter 
was  Bishop  of  Antioch  for  some  years  before  he  was  Bishop 
of  Rome.  The  question  arises  therefore  as  to  which  of  these 
two  Churches,  the  elder  Antioch  or  the  younger  Rome,  has 
rightfully  inherited  his  supposed  supremacy  and  authority. 

I  state  the  argument  thus. — The  apostle  Peter  founded  the 
Church  of  Antioch  ;  we  read  in  the  Scriptures  that  he  was  at 
Antioch ;  it  is  acknowledged  by  the  Romanists  that  he  was 
Bishop  of  Antioch  for  some  years  ;  this  fact  being  undisputed, 
we  argue,  that  if  St.  Peter  was  the  "  rock"  on  which  the 
Church  of  Christ  was  built,  then  the  Church  of  Antioch  has 
as  much  claim  as  the  Church  of  Rome  to  all  the  prerogatives 


THE    SUPREMACY    OF   THE    CHURCH    OF    ROME.  425 

of  Peter.  If  the  fact  of  St.  Peter  having  been  Bishop  of  Rome 
insures  the  infallibility  and  supremacy  of  Rome,  then  will  the 
fact  of  St.  Peter  having  been  Bishop  of  Antioch  insure  the  in- 
fallibility and  supremacy  of  Antioch,  The  plea  is  as  good  for 
one  as  for  the  other  ;  if  it  holds  valid  for  Rome,  it  must  hold 
vahd  for  Antioch  ;  and  if  it  be  invalid  for  Antioch,  it  must  be 
invalid  for  Rome. 

My  fiiend  could  give  no  solution  of  this  difficulty.  He  con- 
fessed that  he  saw  and  felt  it,  but  could  not  account  for  it ;  but 
that  he  would  make  the  inquiry  of  those  more  competent  than 
himself,  and  tell  me  the  result.  He  was  true  to  his  word,  and  I 
learned  shortly  afterward  the  explanation  he  received.  It  was, 
that  God,  by  express  revelation,  commanded  St.  Peter  ro  re- 
sign the  bishopric  of  Antioch,  and  to  accept  the  bishopric  of 
Rome ;  and  that  the  exchange  having  been  effected,  St.  Peter 
bequeathed  by  will  the  headship  of  the  Church,  with  all  the 
privileges  of  authority  and  supremacy,  to  the  Church  of  Rome  ! 

It  seems  strange  that  thinking  men  should  be  content  with 
such  an  answer  as  this — a  revelation  from  God  translating 
Peter  from  the  see  of  Antioch  to  the  see  of  Rome,  and  a  will 
from  Peter,  bequeathing  his  supremacy  and  authority  to  the 
successors  in  the  see  of  Rome ! 

They  have  no  other  answer  than  this — they  have  no  other 
link  than  this  to  complete  the  chain  !  We  tell  them  there 
never  was  such  a  revelation.  We  tell  them  there  never  was 
such  a  will.  And  yet,  upon  this  wild  and  foolish  fiction,  the 
whole  privilege  of  the  headship  of  the  Church,  the  mother 
and  mistress  of  all  Churches — the  authority  of  the  Pope — the 
supremacy  of  the  Church — is  asserted  to  exist  in  the  Church 
of  Rome  in  preference  to  the  Church  of  Antioch.  On  this 
wild  and  foolish  fiction  they  claim  for  the  Bishop  of  Rome, 
as  the  chief  Bishop  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  and  for  the 
Church  of  Rome,  as  "  the  mother  and  mistress  of  all  churches," 
an  authority  over  the  Church  of  England  ! 

We  will  never  yield  ourselves  to  this  claim.  Even  if  they 
could  produce  a  revelation  from  God,  commanding  St.  Peter 
to  remove  his  see  from  Antioch  to  Rome,  it  could  only  prove 


426  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

he  had  lawful  authority  at  Rome  ;  it  could  not  prove  he  had 
lawful  authority  in  England.  Even  if  they  could  produce  the 
pretended  will  of  St.  Peter,  devising  authority  and  supremacy 
to  Rome,  we  must  deny  his  right  to  make  such  a  bequest. 
We  should  argue  that  even  if  he  possessed  authority  and  su- 
premacy himself,  he  could  no  more  devise  them  than  the 
Queen  of  England  could  de\dse  her  crown,  or  than  the  Arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury  could  devise  his  see.  The  Queen  of 
England  has  only  a  life-interest  in  the  crown  ;  she  can  not  de- 
vise it.  The  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  has  only  a  life-interest 
in  his  see  ;  he  can  not  devise  it.  And,  in  the  same  way,  St. 
Peter  had  only  a  life- interest  in  his  supposed  authority  and 
supremacy  ;  he  could  not  devise  it.  If  ever  there  was  a  head- 
ship of  the  Church  in  St.  Peter,  then,  when  he  died,  it  either 
died  with  him,  or  it  must  have  lapsed  to  St.  Paul,  or  St, 
James,  or  St.  John,  or  to  some  one  of  the  apostles.  It  is  not 
possible  it  could  have  descended  to  any  inferior  person,  that 
he  should  have  a  headship  over  the  apostles  of  our  Lord.  So 
that  if  even  there  was  such  a  revelation  and  such  a  will,  it 
might  prove  St.  Peter  had  authority  in  Rome,  but  it  could  not 
jH'ove  that  he  had  authority  in  England, 

And  now  to  review  our  argument.  The  claim  of  the 
Bishop  of  Rome  to  the  headship  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  and 
his  subsequent  claim  of  authority  over  our  Church  and  realm 
of  England,  depends  or  hangs  suspended,  as  it  were,  on  a 
chain  consisting  of  three  links.  The  first  is,  that  St.  Peter  was 
the  rock  on  which  the  whole  Church  was  built.  The  second 
is,  that  he  placed  the  Church  at  Rome,  and  then  connected 
himself  with  that  see.  The  third  is,  that  he  bequeathed  his 
infallible  authority  from  his  eldest  daughter  of  Antioch  to  his 
younger  daughter  of  Rome.  It  is  evident,  that  if  any  one  of 
these  three  links  be  defective,  and  much  more  if  all  of  them 
are  defective,  the  Vatican  is  too  vast  a  burden  for  them,  and  the 
whole  must  fall  and  be  broken  in  pieces.  The  more  this  chain 
of  argument  is  examined,  the  more  assured  will  every  thinldng 
man  become  of  the  utter  vanity  and  futility  of  the  Romish 
claims.     It  would  not  be  more  vain  or  futile  to  dream  of  sus- 


THE    SUPREMACY    OF    THE    CHURCH    OP   ROME.  427 

pending  the  dome  of  St.  Paul's  Cathedral  ou  a  spider's  web, 
or  Windsor  Castle  on  a  gossamer  thread,  than  to  suspend  the 
claims  of  the  Papacy  upon  a  support  so  frail  and  slender  as 
this. 

And  yet  this  is  the  whole  force  of  their  argument,  as 
founded  on  that  place  in  Matthew  xvi.  It  is  the  sheet-anchor 
to  which  their  advocates  hold  when  all  else  seems  swept  away, 
and  every  thing  seems  the  shattered  fragments  of  a  wreck ; 
they  therefore  cling  to  it  as  with  the  grasp  of  death.  Often, 
however,  have  I  seen  them,  after  many  a  long  and  vigorous 
and  desperate  struggle,  at  last  relax  their  hold,  and,  with 
weeping  eye  and  heaving  breast,  let  it  be  swept  away  with  all 
the  useless  lumber  that  had  long  been  connected  with  it.  And 
then  all  was  new.  It  was  indeed  a  change,  great,  boundless, 
wonderful.  It  was  as  if  they  had  been  plunged  amid  the  rag- 
ing surges — had  felt  a  death-struggle — had  seen  glimpses  of 
another  world,  and  had  now  at  last  opened  the  eye  on  a  scene 
of  peace  and  rest  and  joy.  One  had  spoken  the  words, 
"  Peace,  be  still,"  and  there  was  a  great  calm.  It  was  the 
change  from  the  uncertainty  of  Romanism  to  the  realities  of 
Christianity ! 

While  arguing  on  this  subject,  my  friend,  on  one  occasion, 
objected  to  my  regarding  the  passage  in  Matthew  as  the  only 
place  that  taught  the  supremacy  of  Peter.  He  referred  to 
John  xxi.  15.  He  remarked  on  this,  that  our  Lord's  people 
or  Church  were  His  flock  of  "  sheep"  and  of  "  lambs ;" — that 
they,  the  old  and  the  young,  were  alike  committed  to  Peter, 
and  not  to  the  other  apostles  ;  and  he  therefore  inferred  that 
our  Lord  constituted  him  as  the  Chief  Shepherd  of  souls,  as 
His  Vicar  or  Chief  Shepherd  upon  earth. 

In  reply  to  this,  I  expressed  the  pain  that  every  good  man 
must  feel  at  the  fact,  that  Scriptures  like  this  should  ever  be- 
come a  field  of  controversy.  They  were  designed  for  the  use 
and  profit  and  improvement  of  souls,  showing  their  need  of 
constant  watching  and  tending,  and  also  showing  the  real 
duty  of  the  ministry  of  the  Church  as  the  shepherds  of  the 
flock.     I  added,  that  the  allusion  in  the  present  instance  was  ?^ 


428  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

painful  one,  and  militated  against  Peter.  He  had  denied  our 
Lord — he  had  done  so  three  times — he  had  done  so  with 
eveiy  aggravation,  even  with  cursing  and  oaths  ;  and  he  was 
probably  regarded,  at  least  there  was  danger  of  his  being  re- 
garded by  the  other  Apostles,  as  having  fallen  from  his  apos- 
tleship.  They  knew  that  Judas  had  so  fallen.  Peter  himself 
knew  this  and  states  this.  (Acts,  i.  20.)  His  mind  and  their 
mind  required  to  be  satisfied.  And  our  Lord,  therefore,  ad- 
dressed Peter  in  this  remarkable  way  to  set  all  this  at  rest. 
Peter  had  denied  Him  three  times.  And  in  allusion  to  this 
our  Lord  commits  to  him  three  times  the  office  which  he  had 
justly  forfeited,  that  of  being  one  of  the  shepherds  of  His 
flock.  And  thus,  I  argued,  that  these  words  can  in  no  sense 
be  construed  into  an  appointment  of  Peter  as  the  head  of  the 
Church  and  Vicar  of  Christ.  They  were  designed  rather  to 
humble  him,  as  reminding  him  of  his  fall. 

My  friend  was  not  satisfied  altogether  with  this,  and  added, 
that  our  Lord  must  have  intended  something  more  than  this. 
We  never  read  of  any  other  persons  being  desired  to  feed 
the  sheep  and  the  lambs  of  Christ ;  He  used  such  language 
only  to  Peter. 

I  told  him  that  the  same  language  was  applied  in  Holy 
Scripture  to  all  the  ministers  of  the  Church  ;  that  they  all,  as 
well  as  Peter,  were  addressed  as  shepherds  of  the  flock  of 
Jesus  Christ,  the  Great  Shepherd  of  the  sheep ;  that  Paul  so 
addresses  them  :  "  Take  heed,  therefore,  unto  yourselves,  and 
to  all  the  flock  over  which  the  Holy  Ghost  has  made  you 
overseers,  to  feed  the  Church  of  God,  which  he  has  purchased 
with  his  own  blood." — Acts,  xx.  28.  Such  was  the  language 
of  Paul ;  and  that  of  Peter  himself  is  similar :  "  The  elders 
who  are  among  you,  I  exhort,  who  am  also  an  elder — feed  the 
flock." — 1  Peter,  v.  1.  This  language  shows  that  all  the  min- 
istry of  the  Church  are  the  shepherds  of  the  flock  of  Christ ; 
and,  therefore,  that  there  is  nothing  extraordinary  in  the  ap- 
phcation  of  the  same  language  by  our  Lord  to  Peter. 

My  friend  made  no  further  remark  on  this  subject,  so  I  took 
occasion  to  say  that  I  never  could  see  why  the  advocates  of 


THE    SUPREMACV    OF   THE    CHURCH    OF    ROME.  429 

the  Church  of  Rome  were  so  anxious  to  magnify  Peter  above 
the  other  Apostles.  I  could  never  see  how  they  could  benefit 
their  position  by  such  means  ;  for,  even  supposing  they  could 
prove  that  Apostle  to  be  the  prince  of  the  apostles,  I  could  not 
see  how  that  fact,  if  indeed  a  fact,  could  give  reality  to  any 
fiction,  or  effect  to  any  assumption,  or  truth  to  any  error,  that 
might  exist  in  the  Church  of  Rome.  I  stated  freely,  that  I 
did  not  want  to  press  the  argument,  that  of  all  the  Apostles 
Peter  seemed  the  least  fitted  for  supremacy  ;  he  reproved  our 
Lord  for  speaking  of  his  coming  sufferings  ;  he  refused  to  be 
washed  by  the  hands  of  our  Lord  ;  he  proposed  on  the  Mount 
of  Transfiguration  to  make  a  tabernacle  for  Moses  and  Elias, 
as  if  on  an  equality  with  Christ,  as  the  evangelist  simply  re- 
marks :  "  not  knowing  what  he  said ;"  he  denied  our  Lord 
under  the  most  base  circumstances,  with  cursing  and  oaths ; 
he  was  openly  withstood  to  the  face  by  Paul,  because  he  had 
dissembled  and  was  to  be  blamed  as  not  walking  uprightly. 
He  seems  thus  the  least  likely  to  have  been  selected  to  be  the 
prince  of  the  apostles ;  the  more  especially  as  on  two  occa- 
sions, Luke  ix.  46  and  xxii.  24,  we  read  of  some  disputes 
among  them  as  to  who  Avas  to  be  the  greatest.  Now  as  the 
much-boasted  passage  supposed  to  have  conferred  this  chief- 
ship  on  Peter  occurs  in  Matt,  xvi.,  and  as  the  dispute  among 
them,  as  to  who  was  to  be  the  greatest,  occurred  immediately 
afterward,  in  Matt,  xviii.,  so  it  must  be  inferred  that  the  ques- 
tion was  not  settled  by  our  Lord's  words  in  Matt,  xvi, ;  or 
otherwise  the  dispute  could  never  have  arisen.  And  besides 
this,  our  Lord  would  at  once  have  silenced  it  by  reminding 
them  that  he  had  already  appointed  Peter  over  them,  if  in- 
deed he  had  appointed  him.  But  instead  of  this,  as  if  noth- 
ing of  the  kind  had  ever  occurred,  he  puts  a  child  in  the  midst, 
and  proceeds  to  tell  them  that  no  one  was  to  be  their  chief,  for 
that  all  were  to  be  equal  as  brethren. 

There  was  no  efibrt  to  reply  to  this  ;  so  I  said,  that  even  if 
we  granted,  a  supremacy  or  a  primacy  to  St.  Peter,  I  could 
not  see  how  it  improved  the  position  of  the  Church  of  Rome, 
so  far  as  her  claims  were  concerned.     The  great  point  between 


430  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

US  was,  whether  certain  doctrines  and  practices,  which  we  held 
to  be  untrue  and  novel,  contrary  to  Holy  Scripture  and  differ- 
ent from  the  primitive  Church,  were  or  were  not  the  true  doc- 
trines and  practices  of  Christ's  Church.  I  could  never  see 
how  any  question  respecting  Peter  could  determine  this.  Let 
him  be  supposed  to  have  held  any  position  whatever  in  the 
days  of  our  Lord  and  of  His  Apostles,  that  fact,  supposing  it 
to  be  a  fact,  could  not  be  a  justification  of  any  error  of  doc- 
trine or  of  practice  which  had  afterward  crept  into  the  Church 
of  Rome.  His  ancient  primacy  could  not  give  truth  to  any 
modern  error. 

My  friend,  who  had  been  silent,  as  if  doubtful  how  to 
reply,  now  said,  that  if  Peter  was  the  head  of  the  Church,  it 
might  fairly  be  inferred  that  the  Church  of  Rome  has  inherited 
that  headship  over  the  whole  Church,  so  as  to  be  entitled  to 
the  obedience  of  all  other  Churches. 

I  said  that  I  could  not  for  a  moment  recognize  any  head 
of  the  Church  but  one — the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  He,  and  only 
He,  is  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  styled  the  Head  of  the  Church. 
'•  He  hath  put  all  things  under  his  feet,  and  gave  him  to  be 
the  Head  over  all  things  to  the  Church." — Eph.  i.  22.  Again, 
"Christ  is  the  Head  of  the  Church." — Eph.  v.  23.  Again, 
"He  is  the  Head  of  the  body,  the  Church."— Col  i.  18. 
Again  in  Col.  ii.  19.  And  again,  "that  we  may  grow  up  into 
Him  in  all  things  who  is  the  Head,  even  Christ." — Eph.  iv.  15. 
The  language  of  Holy  Scripture  is  clear  on  this  subject,  and 
we  can  not  without  irreverence  speak  of  any  other  as  Head  of 
the  Church.  It  is  a  grand  element  of  truth  as  received  among 
us,  that  there  can  be  no  Head  but  Jesus  Christ. 

My  friend  seemed  fully  aware  of  this  principle.  He  did 
not  seem  so  well  aware  that  the  Holy  Scriptures  had  so  fre- 
quently spoken  only  of  Christ  as  the  Head.  He  therefore 
said,  that  admitting  that  Jesus  Carist  was  the  Head  over  the 
Church,  yet  as  He  was  in  Heaven,  He  required  a  Head  for  His 
Church  on  earth,  and  that  thus  the  successors  of  Peter  in  the 
See  of  Rome  claimed  to  be  his  -vacars  on  earth. 

I  said  that  the  fact  of  Jesus  Christ  having  ascended  into 


THE    SUPREMACY    OF   THE    CHURCH    OF    ROME,  431 

Heaven,  did  not  prove  any  necessity  for  a  vicar  or  deputy  on 
earth,  iuasmucli  as  lie  was  ever  present  by  His  Holy  Spirit, 
ruling  all  things  in  the  Church.  The  Holy  Spirit  was  the  One 
who  rules  in  his  stead.  And  as  to  the  argument  that  Christy 
had  ascended  into  Heaven — that  he  was  no  more  in  the  Church 
on  earth — and  that  he  therefore  required  a  vicar  in  his  place, 
I  said  that  it  seemed  to  me  a  strange  position  for  a  Romanist, 
who  believed  that  He  was  literally,  truly,  substantially  in  flesh, 
and  blood,  and  soul,  and  divinity,  on  every  altar,  and  at  all 
times  in  her  churches.  If  indeed  He  is  thus  always  present, 
it  can  not  be  supposed  He  wants  a  vicar  to  represent  Him. 

This  way  of  stating  the  question  struck  my  friend  as  new, 
and  he  saw  no  way  of  getting  out  of  it.  And,  therefore,  with- 
out attempting  to  answer  it,  he  only  said  carelessly,  that  with 
so  many  Churches  in  the  world,  it  was  desirable  to  have  one  to 
rule  over  them  all,  as  the  one  head  bishop  of  all  upon  earth. 
It  would  serve  to  promote  and  establish  unity  and  uniformity 
among  all. 

I  was  fully  prepared  for  this  point,  for  I  had  heard  it  urged 
a  thousand  times.  I  said  that  my  friend  knew  that  there  were 
many  kingdoms,  and  empires,  and  republics  in  the  world. 
They  were  all  under  their  own  particular  laws  and  rulers ;  and 
there  seemed  no  necessity  or  even  advantage,  but  quite  the 
contrary,  in  their  having  One  Chief  Sovereign  who  was  to  be 
head  over  all  other  sovereigns,  with  the  view  of  establishing 
one  set  of  laws  and  principles  among  them.  It  was,  undoubt- 
edly, better  for  mankind  that  each  state  should  be  governed 
by  itself,  all  being  under  the  headship  of  Him  who  is  the  King 
of  kings,  and  Lord  of  lords.  And  in  like  manner,  there  are 
many  national  Churches  under  their  own  laws  and  rulers. 
And  there  is  no  more  necessity  for  their  being  all  subjected  to 
one  head  on  earth,  than  that  all  the  civil  states  of  the  world 
should  be  subjected  to  one  sovereign  over  all.  Wisdom  would 
seem  to  teach  that  all  states  should  be  ruled  by  themselves, 
all  being  alike  under  the  Headship  of  Christ,  and  that  in  like 
manner  all  Churches  should  be  regulated  by  themselves,  all 
being  alike  under  the  Headship  of  Christ.     The  Churches 


432  EVENIKGS    "WITH   THE    ROMANISTS. 

require  a  Head  upon  earth  no  more  than  tte  states.  They 
both  have  their  Head  in  the  heavens,  and  he  can  rule  both 
without  any  special  vicar  upon  earth.  If  he  can  rule  the 
kingdoms  and  empires  of  the  earth  without  any  supreme  ^^ca^ 
over  all,  He  can  as  fully  rule  all  the  national  Churches  of  the 
earth  without  any  supreme  vicar  over  all. 


INFALLIBILITY  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

The  two  Modes  of  testing  Infallibility— The  Value  of  this  Privilege— It  is  claimed 
Ly  all  Churches— The  Romanists  place  it  in  Councils  and  Popes— Protestants  have 
it  in  the  Holy  Scriptures— The  Systems  compared— A  living  and  speaking  Infal- 
libility does  not  exist  in  any  Church— Romish  Arguments  for  Infallibility  exam- 
ined—Its supposed  Necessity  and  Usefulness— Tests  of  Scripture— Argument  in 
common  with  the  Jewish  Church— Its  Infallibility  more  easily  provable  than 
that  of  the  Romish  Church— General  Councils,  their  Constitutions  and  Incon- 
sistencies. 

In  reference  to  the  claim  of  infallibility,  on  the  part  of  the 
Church  of  Rome,  there  is  a  wide  difference  in  the  process  of 
argument,  as  handled  by  her  advocates,  and  as  handled  by  her 
opponents.  They  always  assume  that  their  Church  is  infallible, 
and  thence  conclude  that  whatever  she  teaches  is  right — 
whatever  its  appearances,  it  is  right.  We,  on  the  other  hand, 
argue,  that,  that  which  the  law  condemns  is  wrong,  and  thence 
we  conclude  that  she  is  not  infallible.  With  them  the  assumed 
infallibility  justifies  and  sanctions  the  thing  that  seems  to  us 
to  be  wrong.  With  us  the  thing  being  wrong,  proves  that 
the  Church  is  not  infallible. 

An  illustration — and  the  more  simple  the  better — will 
elucidate  this  difference  of  reasoning.  If  a  man  has  been 
detected  in  the  act  of  thieving,  and  has  been  charged  with 
dishonesty  and  crime,  there  are  two  modes  of  reasoning  on  his 
case.  On  one  hand  he  may  admit  the  fact,  that  he  has  robbed, 
but  he  may  argue  that  the  act  was  neither  dishonest  nor  crimi- 
nal, because  that  he  was  an  honest  and  lawful  man,  who  would 
never  have  done  that  which  was  dishonest  or  criminal. 
He  thus  admits  the  fact,  but  justifies  it  on  the  ground  that 
it  is  done  by  one  who  can  not  do  wrong,  and  whose  very 
doing  it  justifies  and  sanctions  it.     His  accuser,  on  the  other 

19 


434  EVENINGS    WITH   THE    ROMANISTS. 

hand,  proves  the  fact,  and  argues  that  thieving  or  robbing  is 
contrary  to  the  law,  a  breach  of  the  written  law.  And  being 
a  dishonest  and  criminal  act,  the  man  who  is  guilty,  must 
be  held  to  be  dishonest  and  criminal.  This  illustration 
explains  the  different  process  of  reasoning  of  the  advocates  of 
the  rival  Churches.  The  Romanist  argues  that  Latin  prayers, 
half-communion,  prayers  to  saints,  worship  of  Mary,  use  of 
images,  etc.,  are  all  wise,  and  right,  and  good,  because  they 
have  been  done  by  fln  infallible  Church.  However  wrong, 
mischievous,  dangerous,  unscriptural  they  may  seem,  they 
ought  to  be  held  wise,  and  good,  and  right,  because  sanctioned 
by  an  infallible  Church.  The  Protestant,  on  the  other  hand, 
argues  that  these  practices  are  contrary  to  the  law,  the  written 
law  of  God,  as  contained  in  Holy  vScriptures  (as  contrary  as 
thieving  and  robbery  is  to  the  written  law  of  the  land),  and, 
therefore,  the  fact  that  the  Church  of  Rome  has  ordained,  and 
practiced,  and  taught  these,  proves  that  she  is  an  erring  and 
guilty  Church,  instead  of  being,  as  she  assumes,  an  infaUible 
one.  Thus  the  Church  of  Rome  tries  her  actions  by  her  claim 
to  infallibility,  and  we  try  her  claim  to  infallibility  by  her 
actions,  thus  trying  her  as  we  try  the  professing  Christian, 
that  is,  we  test  his  profession  of  Christianity  by  his  actions,  not 
his  actions  by  his  profession.  We  judge  the  tree  by  its  fruit, 
not  the  fruit  by  the  tree. 

The  natural  course,  which  common  sense  and  just  dealing 
•will  justify,  and  which  is  analogous  to  all  our  dealings  in 
human  life,  is  to  test  the  character  of  the  Church  of  Rome  by 
her  actions — to  test  her  orthodoxy  by  her  doctrines,  and  her 
infallibility  by  her  practices.  It  is  therefore  that  every  proof 
of  the  unscriptural  and  antiscriptural  nature  of  her  peculiar 
doctiines  and  practices — every  proof  of  their  being  inconsist- 
ent with  or  contrary  to  the  lex  scripta^  the  written  law  of  God, 
is  a  proof  against  the  assumed  infallibility  of  the  Church  of 
Rome.  It  is  precisely  with  that  Church  as  with  eveiy  man. 
If  we  have  proved  him  to  have  spoken  words  which  the  law  of 
the  land  condemn  as  rebellious  or  treasonable,  or,  if  we  have 
proved  him  to  have  done  an  action  which  the  writtf  n  law  of 


INFALLIBILITY    OF    THE    CHURCH.  436 

the  land  coudemns  as  illegal  and  criminal,  he  is  at  once  con- 
demned. And  so,  if  we  have  proved  that  the  Church  of 
Rome  has  taught  doctrines  contrary  to  the  written  word  of 
God,  or  that  she  has  inculcated  practices  opposed  to  the 
written  law  of  God — if  we  have  proved  that  she  has  ordained 
that  which  is  unscriptural  or  anti-scriptural,  she  must  be  con- 
demned. This  is  the  judgment  of  all  common  sense  and  right 
justice  alike.* 

But,  as  the  advocates  of  the  Church  of  Rome  insist  on 
assuming  her  to  be  infallible  and  as  justifying  every  thing  in 
the  virtue  of  her  assumed  infallibility,  we  may  follow  them, 
and  impeach  her  claim  to  infallibility  without  reference  to 
her  actions  at  all.  The  following  conversation,  in  which  I 
was  once  engaged  with  a  very  good  and  zealous  priest  of  the 
Church  of  Rome,  will  illustrate  this. 

He  spoke  in  a  tone  that  showed  he  felt  what  he  was  saying, 
when  he  expatiated  upon  the  value  of  an  infallible  authority. 
He  reminded  me  that  naturally  we  were  all  in  the  deepest 
darkness  and  ignorance  as  to  the  spiritual  and  eternal  world — 
that  we  naturally  knew  nothing  about  heaven  or  hell — about 
God,  or  Christ,  or  the  Spirit,  or  the  Virgin  Mary,  or  the 
angels,  or  the  saints,  or  even  our  own  souls — that  all  the 
mythologies  of  the  heathen  world,  the  Egyptian,  the  Greek, 
the  Hindoo,  and  many  others  only  showed  what  poor  and 
blind  guides  were  the  wisest  of  men — that  the  great  thing, 
therefore,  that  was  wanted  by  us,  was  an  infallible  guide,  a 
teacher,  so  to  speak,  inspired  by  God  himself — and  that  this 
was  to  be  found  only  in  the  bosom  of  that  Church  which  was'; 
.  infallible.  1 

I  replied  in  the  same  tone  of  earnestness,  feehng  the  reality  ' 

''■  Some  of  her  advocates  argue  that  though  these  acts  seem  con- 
trary to  the  wiitten  law  of  God,  yet  they  are  not  contrary  to  the  un- 
written law — though  seeming  contrary  to  the  Scriptures,  they  are  not 
contrary  to  tradition.  They  distinguish  thus,  as  between  the  statute 
law  and  the  common  law  of  England ;  and  they  forget  that  the  com- 
mon law,  that  is,  the  unwritten  law  of  England,  must  always  yield  to 
the  statute  or  written  law.     It  should  be  the  same  in  the  Church. 


436  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTa. 

of  what  I  was  saying.  I  stated  clearly  and  strongly  how 
fully  I  agreed  A\ath  him  as  to  the  value  and  necessity  for  an 
infallible  authority.  And  I  dwelt  on  the  intense  ignorance 
and  darkness — a  darkness  which,  like  that  of  Egypt,  could  be 
felt — of  man  when  left  in  his  natural  state,  lU'ging  that  he 
knew  not  whence  he  came,  where  he  was,  or  whither  he  was 
going,  and  that  there  was  a  necessity — an  absolute  necessity — 
for  an  infallible  authority,  a  God-inspired  authority,  to  teach 
him  with  certainty  the  way  of  life.  I  added  that  thus  far  we 
wer"e  both  in  perfect  accord.  The  point  where  we  differed, 
was  as  to  the  place,  where  we  could  find  it.  We  looked  for 
it  in  different  directions. 

He  said  at  once  with  confidence,  apparently  enchanted  at 
my  admission,  that  it  was  in  the  Church  of  Rome — that  no 
other  Church  could  pretend  to  the  claim,  and  in  fact  that  no 
other  Church  had  ever  claimed  it. 

I  replied  that  all  the  Churches  of  Christendom — that  the 
Church  of  England,  the  Chjii'ch  of  Scotland,  the  Lutheran 
Church,  all  the  Nonconformist  Churches  claimed  it  alike. 
There  was  not  one  of  them  with  which  I  was  acquainted  that 
did  not  claim  the  full  possession,  not  indeed  the  exclusive,  but 
the  full  possession  of  this  infallibility.  They  all  possessed 
THE  Holy  Scriptures  !  They  all  received  them,  "  not  as  the 
word  of  man,  huih  as,  they  are  in  truth,  the  word  of  GodP 
They  knew  that  "  All  Scripture  was  given  hy  inspiration  of 
God^''  and  they  felt  that  those  Scriptures  were,  therefore,  infal- 
lible, were  an  infallible  guide,  an  infallible  teacher,  and,  pos- 
sessing this,  they  claimed  to  possess  and  did  possess  infalli- 
bility, the  infalhbility  that  was  so  valuable  and  necessary. 

My  friend  was  evidently  taken  by  surprise  at  this.  It 
seemed  never  to  have  occurred  to  him  before  ;  so  I  took  occa- 
sion to  add  that,  where  he  had  described  the  natural  ignorance 
of  man,  here  was  the  God-inspired  guide  to  teach  him — that 
where  he  had  painted  the  deep  darkness  of  man  in  his  state 
of  nature,  here  was  the  infallible  authority  that  could  enlighten 
and  direct  him,  and  that  could  tell  him  all  that  man  can 
know,  as  being  all  God  has  revealed,  respecting  Heaven  and 


INFALLIBILITY   OF    THE    CHCRCH. 


431 


Hell  and  God  and  Christ  and  the  Spirit,  and  also  all  we  ouglit 
to  know  or  think  respecting  the  angels,  or  the  saints,  or  our 
own  souls.  The  only  true  infallibility,  which  the  Church  on 
earth  possesses,  is  in  the  Holy  Scriptures.  And  this  infal- 
lible GUIDE  all  the  Protestant  Churches  possess  ! 

He  did  not  see  how  he  could  answer  this.  He  hesitated, 
and  after  a  few  moments  said  that  he  admitted  the  Holy 
Scriptures  to  he  inspired  and  therefore  infallible,  and  that 
possessing  them,  we  of  course  possessed  an  infallible  guide. 
But  the  real  difficulty  was  not  the  Scriptures,  but  the  intrepre- 
tation  of  the  Scriptures,  and  the  advantage  of  the  Church  of 
Rome  was,  that  she  had  an  infallible  interpreter  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, while  others  had  only  their  own  fallible  interpretation 
of  private  judgment. 

I  was  prepared  for  this  answer,  and  rejoined  at  once  by 
asking  him  where  I  was  to  find  the  infallible  interpreter  of 
Scripture  in  the  Church  of  Rome. 

He  said,  without  a  moment's  hesitation,  that  it  was  in  the 
voice  of  the  Church  of  Rome  ;  that  if  I  really  wished  to  see  it, 
I  could  see  it  recorded  in  the  canons  and  decrees  of  the 
general  councils,  and  in  the  bulls  of  the  popes — that  these 
contained  the  infallible  voice,  and  interpretation  of  the 
Scriptures. 

I  reminded  him  in  reply,  that  some  of  the  Church  of  Rome, 
as  the  French,  held  that  the  infallibility  was  in  the  general 
councils  rather  than  in  the  popes — that  others  of  them,  as  thq 
Italians,  insist  that  the  infallibility  resides  in  the  popes  rather 
than  in  the  councils — and  that  other  authorities  still,  as  the 
English,  teach  that  the  infellibility  is  in  neither  the  councils 
nor  the  popes,  but  in  the  whole  aggregate  of  the  whole 
Church,  represented  by  the  union  of  both  popes  and  councils. 
I  reminded  my  friend  that  it  was  not  easy  for  me  to  find  the 
precise  locality  where  I  could  discover  the  infallible  interpreter 
of  Scripture.  Each  party  seemed  to  me  to  prove  clearly  that 
his  opponent  was  wrong,  but  to  argue  very  feebly  when  en- 
deavoring to  prove  that  his  own  position  was  right,  and  there- 
fore, I  asked  again,  where  among  these  discordant  opinions, 


438  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

could  I  find  that  infallible  interpreter  whicli  he  admitted  to 
be  so  essential. 

It  was  at  once  apparent  that  he  felt  the  difficulty  of  his 
position ;  he  said  that  such  difference  of  opinion  was  wholly 
unimportant — that  however  the  Italians  might  differ  from  the 
French,  and  both  from  the  English,  yet  they  all  agreed  that 
the  Church  was  infallible,  and  that  was  the  main  point.  They 
agreed  in  that  which  was  essential,  and  they  differed  only  in 
that  which  was  non-essential. 

I  apologized  for  seeming  to  be  persevering.  The  question, 
I  said,  was  not  whether  there  was  infallibility  in  the  Church 
of  Rome,  but  ivhere  was  I  to  find  in  her  the  infallible  inter- 
preter of  Scripture  which  he  stated  to  be  so  essential.  He 
had  merely  stated  that  it  was  somewhere,  but  omitted  to  say 
where,  and  I  felt  that  the  infallible  interpreter  was  to  be  found 
nowhere — if  as  one  party,  the  French,  stated  it  was  not  in  the 
popes,  and  if  another  party,  as  the  Italians,  asserted  it  was  not 
in  the  councils,  and  if  a  further  party,  as  the  English,  held  it 
was  not  to  be  found  in  either  the  one  or  the  other,  we  were 
left  practically  to  the  position  of  those  who  could  not  find  it 
any  where,  as  if  it  really  had  no  actual  existence  any  where.  I 
therefore,  pressed  him  kindly  to  direct  me  where  I  should  posi- 
tively, or  at  least  probably,  find  this  infallible  interpreter. 

He  evidently  knew  not  precisely  what  reply  to  make  to  my 
natural  inquiry ;  but  he  said  that  the  disputes  in  the  Church 
of  Rome,  as  to  the  seat  of  infallibility,  were  quite  unimportant, 
so  long  as  the  existence  of  the  infallibility  somewhere  within 
her  was  admitted  ;  and  he  assured  me  that  I  had  only  to  study 
the  banons  and  the  councils  and  the  hulls  of  the  popes,  and  I 
should  soon  find  the  infallible  interpreter. 

This  placed  the  whole  argument  in  my  hands ;  I  therefore 
said,  that  on  his  own  showing,  the  difference  between  the 
Roman  infallibility  and  the  Protestant  infallibility  was  this — ■ 
the  Roman  infallibility/  was  said  to  be  in  the  canons  and 
BULLS  OF  POPES,  while  the  Protestant  infallibility  was  in  the 
Holy  Scriptures  ;  the  question  therefore  was,  which  of  these 
two  was  the  most  useful,  convenient,  available.     The  Roman 


INFAI.LIUILI'IY    OF    THE    CHURCH.  439 

infallibility  was  comprised  in  a  large  and  vast  series  of  pon- 
derous volumes,  to  be  found  only  in  the  libraries  of  the  uni- 
versities, and  of  public  institutions,  requiring  a  whole  life  to 
read  them,  and  a  fortune  to  purchase  them.  The  Protestant 
infallibility,  on  the  other  hand,  was  in  one  small  and  compact 
volume,  to  be  found  in  every  family,  and  so  cheap  as  to  be  ac- 
cessible to  all,  and  easily  perused  by  all.  Again,  the  Roman 
infallibility  was  contained  in  canons  and  bullaj  written  originally 
in  Greek  and  in  Latin,  and  never  translated  into  our  modern 
languages,  and  therefore  wholly  inaccessible  and  useless  to  the 
great  multitude  of  the  Christian  family.  The  Protestant  in- 
fallibility on  the  other  hand,  is  found  in  the  Holy  Scriptures, 
which,  though  originally  written  in  Hebrew  and  Greek,  have 
been  translated  and  circulated  in  every  language,  and  thus 
have  become  accessible  and  intelligible  to  all  the  family  of 
Christ.  And,  although  my  friend  had  stated  that  the  Holy 
Scriptures  were  subject  to  this  objection,  that  they  required 
to  be  translated — that  they  required  their  authenticity  to  be 
proved — that  they  required  their  inspiration  to  be  demon- 
strated— that  they  required  to  be  interpreted,  as  otherwise  they 
were  liable  to  be  misinterpreted  and  differently  interpreted  by 
different  persons  ;  so  the  very  same  objections  applied  to  the 
canons  of  councils  and  bulls  of  popes,  for  that  they  required 
also  to  be  translated — they  required  also  their  authenticity  to 
be  proved — they  required  also  their  inspiration  to  be  demon- 
strated— they  required  also  to  be  interpreted,  as  otherwise  they 
were  liable  to  be  misinterpreted  and  differently  interpreted  by 
different  persons.  There  was  not  a  single  objection  advanced 
against  the  Holy  Scriptures,  the  infallible  guide  of  the  Prot- 
estant Churches,  which  does  not  apply  still  more  strongly 
against  the  canons  and  bulls  which  are  the  infallible  guide 
of  the  Roman  Churches.  And  there  is  this  one  important 
consideration — one  of  immense  and  solemn  importance  on 
such  a  subject.  Our  guide,  the  Holy  Scriptures,  is  admitted 
by  Rome  herself  to  be  God-inspired,  and  therefore  infal- 
lible. There  is  no  question  on  that  point,  that  infallibility  13 
admitted  by  all ;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  her  guide,  the 


440  EVENINGS    WITH   THE    ROMANISTS. 

councils  and  the  popes,  are  not  only  not  recognized  or  believed 
by  us  to  be  God-inspired  or  infallible,  but  the  very  reverse  ; 
they  are  uninspired  and  fallible. 

We  were  thus  brought  to  a  pause  in  our  argument.  We 
had  agreed  as  to  the  value  and  necessity  for  some  infaUible 
authority  to  teach  and  enlighten  us  in  the  things  of  the  invis- 
ible world.  We  had  agreed  that  it  ought  to  be  easily  ac- 
cessible, available,  and  intelligible  to  the  people.  The  point 
whereon  we  were  not  agreed,  was  that  my  friend  on  the  part 
of  the  Church  of  Rome  said  that  this  infallible  authority  was 
the  Holy  Spirit,  inspiring  the  canons  of  councils,  and 
BULLS  OF  POPES,  while  I  maintained  that  it  was  the  Holy 
Spirit,  inspiring  the  Holy  Scriptures.  This,  therefore, 
brought  the  question  concerning  infallibility  to  a  short  issue. 
It  enabled  me  to  place  it  in  a  simple  and  clear  hght.  It 
enabled  me  to  place  the  volumes  of  councils  and  bulls  on  one 
side,  and  the  Holy  Scriptures  on  the  other — to  place  the  twenty 
or  thirty  ponderous  volumes  of  the  former  on  one  side,  and 
the  one  portable  volume  of  the  Bible  on  the  other — to  look 
at  the  untranslated  and  almost  untranslatable  Greek  and  Latin 
of  the  former  on  one  hand,  and  on  the  plain  and  simple  trans- 
lation into  English  of  the  latter  on  the  other  hand — to  look 
at  the  former,  so  large,  cumbrous,  expensive,  on  one  side,  and 
to  look  at  the  latter,  so  small,  convenient,  and  cheap,  on  the 
other  side — and  having  marked  the  contrast,  we  were  in  some 
condition  to  see  which  was  the  most  convenient,  accessible, 
and  available  for  the  multitude,  who  constituted  the  children 
of  God  and  family  of  Christ. 

My  friend  saw  that  the  question  was  thus  narrowing ;  and 
he  likewise  saw  with  clearness  the  difficulty  of  his  position — 
the  difficulty  in  which  he  was  brought  by  this  process  of  rea- 
soning, but  he  did  not  see  with  equal  clearness  any  mode  by 
which  he  could  extricate  himself.  He  made,  however,  the  best 
answer  he  could,  when  he  said  that  in  an  authority  in  spiritual 
things,  such  as  that  which  we  were  seeking,  there  were  other 
requisites  besides  probability  and  cheapness  and  availableness. 
These,  he  said,  were  very  desirable,  perhaps — but  they  were 


INFALLIBILITY    OF    THE    CHURCH.  441 

not  all.     The  grand  requisite  was,  that  the  authority  should 
be  INFALLIBLE,  and  that  it  should  be  universally  recognized 

AS  INl'ALLIBLE. 

To  this  I  of  course  yielded  my  assent ;  and  taking  advan- 
tage of  his  words,  I  reminded  him  that  that  was  the  grand 
recommendation  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  as  well  as  the  great 
defect  of  the  canons  and  bulls.  It  was  the  grand  recommend- 
ation of  THE  Holy  Scriptures  that  their  divine  inspiration  and 
inf;dlibility  is  universally  recognized,  by  Protestant  and  Ro- 
manist and  Greek  alike,  while  it  is  one  great  defect  of  the 
councils  and  bulls  of  popes  that  their  divine  inspiration  or 
inftillibility  is  not  only  not  recognized,  but  absolutely  rejected 
and  denied  by  the  majority  of  professing  Christendom  ! 

He  then  said  that  the  Holy  Scriptures,  considered  as  the  in- 
folhble  authority  in  the  Church,  were  liable  to  a  further  objec- 
tion which  he  had  not  yet  stated.  It  was  that  they  were  now 
silent,  and  could  not  speak  so  as  to  decide  on  any  question  that 
had  been  raised  for  some  centuries.  It  could  not  in  fact  be  a 
living  and  speaking  infallibility. 

I  said  that  it  was  scarcely  necessary  to  remind  him  that  the 
canons  of  councils  and  bulls  of  popes  are  in  that  respect  in 
the  very  same  predicament  as  the  Holy  Scriptures.  They  are 
no  more  living  and  speaking  than  the  Holy  Scriptures.  If 
one  be  objected  to  because  it  is  merely  a  book  or  volume,  then 
the  very  same  objection  will  lie  against  the  other ;  for  the  can- 
ons of  councils  and  the  bulls  of  popes  are  only  a  series  of 
volumes — a  dead,  lifeless,  non-speaking  series  of  books  or  vol- 
umes. And  any  other  exists  not  in  the  Church  of  Rome  ;  for 
since  the  Council  of  Trent  in  1562,  there  has  never  been  a 
Council.  For  three  hundred  years  thisinfallible  authority  has 
been  in  abeyance,  and  in  silence,  and  must  be  so  to  the  end  of 
time.  Whatever  possibilities  ever  existed  before  the  Reforma- 
tion, for  the  assembling  of  a  universal  or  general  council  of 
Christendom,  it  is  now  impossible.  And,  therefore,  if  the  liv- 
ing and  speaking  infallibility  be  in  the  canons  of  councils,  ap- 
proved by  the  bulls  of  popes,  then  not  only  has  it  been  three 
centunes  in  silence  and  abeyance,  but  it  is  in  such  a  position 

19* 


442  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

that,  like  the  long-buried  dead,  it  can  not  rise  again  till  the 
judgment  of  the  last  day.  And,  I  added,  that  the  conduct  of 
all  their  advocates  proved  this,  for  they  never  refer  us  to  any 
living  and  speaking  authority.  They  refer  us  always  to  some 
past  council — some  long  past  councils  of  which  the  very  latest 
met  and  separated  three  centuries  ago,  and  referring  us  to 
these,  and  not  to  any  living  and  speaking  infalHbihty,  they 
practically  show  that  they  have  no  faith  themselves  in  the  ex- 
istence of  such. 

I  ask  you  then,  I  said  in  conclusion,  who  or  what  or  where 
is  the  living  and  speaking  infallibility,  to  which  you  refer  as 
so  unspeakably  valuable  and  essential  ?  You  invite  me  to  sub- 
mit to  it,  you  beseech  me  to  come  to  it.  Who,  and  what  and 
where  is  it  ?  I  mean  this  living  and  speaking  infallibihty — 
who,  and  what  and  where  is  it  ? 

My  friend  made  no  attempt  to  answer  this.  Long  since 
this  conversation  was  held,  I  have  been  answered  at  Rome  that 
the  Pope  was  this  living  and  speaking  infallibility,  but  my 
friend  did  not  believe  the  popes  to  be  infallible.  He  held  that 
the  infallibility  was  in  the  general  councils  approved  by  popes, 
and  he  therefore  knew  not  where  to  turn  to  find  a  livinf  and 
speaking  infallibility  in  reply  to  my  inquiry. 

But  the  question  concerning  in&llibility  is  wide  and  large. 
It  will  bear  handling  in  a  great  variety  of  ways.  And  I  have 
usually  left  myself  to  be  guided  by  the  line  adopted  by  my 
opponents. 

On  one  occasion,  when  conversing  with  a  priest  who 
seemed  to  me  a  good  and  pious  man  according  to  his  light, 
we  had  been  speaking  on  some  great  truths,  on  which  we 
were  not  hkely  to  differ,  when  he  broke  out  with  a  warm  and 
rapturous  address  on  the  comforts  and  blessedness  and  value 
of  infallibihty — the  infallibility  of  the  Church.  It  gave,  he 
said,  such  peace  and  quiet  assurance  to  the  mind  ;  so  that  a 
Christian  man  was  not  "  tossed  to  and  fro  with  every  wind." 
It  was  such  a  satisfaction  to  know  that  one  was  on  an  immoV' 
able  rock,  and  that  in  all  we  were  to  beheve  or  to  do,  we  had 
the  sanction  of  the  infallibility  of  the  Church.    He  added, 


INFALLIBILITY    OF   THE    CHURCH.  443 

that  to  his  mind  the  possession  of  infallibility  was  the  greatest 
and  most  blessed  of  the  privileges  or  prerogatives  of  the 
Church. 

I  replied,  that  I  conld  understand  an  infallibility  in  the 
Holy  Scriptures,  but  that  I  could  not  understand  it  in  any 
other  way  in  the  Church. 

He  said  that  it  was  impossible  for  any  man,  amid  the  in- 
numerable divisions  of  the  times,  the  endless  distractions  of 
the  professing  Church,  the  variety  of  sects  and  parties,  the 
multiplicity  of  opinions,  to  have  any  peace  or  quiet  assurance 
of  mind,  unless  by  reposing  on  the  infallible  authority  of  the 
Church — that  men  of  the  most  astute  intellect,  and  the  deep- 
est and  most  profound  genius,  were  unable  often  to  determine 
between  the  arguments  of  opposing  parties — that  men  learned 
in  all  historical  research  and  ecclesiastical  lore,  felt  themselves 
often  like  some  ship,  made  the  sport  of  the  winds  and  the 
waves,  without  pilot  or  compass  to  guide  them  ;  that  men  of 
gentle  spirits  and  meek  and  lowly  piety  were  agitated  and 
distracted  by  the  contentions,  the  contradictions,  the  argu- 
ments of  rival  sects,  till  it  seemed  to  them  that  religion  was 
for  contention  and  not  for  peace  ;  that  in  the  midst  of  all  this, 
men  could  see  no  star  to  guide,  no  compass  to  direct,  unless 
they  consented  to  sun'euder  their  own  private  judgments,  and 
submit  all  their  doubts  and  difficulties,  to  the  infallible  autho- 
rity of  the  Church. 

I  said  that  I  could  quite  enter  into  and  understand  all  this, 
provided  it  was  first  proved  that  this  infallible  authority  did 
really  exist  in  the  Church  of  Rome.  I  said  that  my  difficulty 
was  not  in  yielding  to  an  infallibility ;  for  I  yielded  all  to  the 
infallible  authority  of  the  Holy  Scriptures ;  but  that  my  real 
difficulty  was  in  believang  that  there  was  some  infallible 
authority  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  other  and  beside  the  Holy 
Scriptures. 

He  spoke  to  me  with  warmth  and  earnestness,  and  instead 
of  noticing  my  difficulty — instead  of  proving  the  existence  of 
this  infallible  tribunal,  he  expatiated  on  the  sad  and  melan- 
choly divisions  of  the  Church.    On  one  hand  was  the  Greek 


4,44  EVENINGS    WITH   THE    ROMANISTS. 

Churcli  with  all  the  Asiatic  Churches,  separated  from  the 
communion  of  the  one  Catholic  Church.  On  the  other  hand 
was  the  Protestant  Church  with  its  endless  variety  of  sects, 
cut  off  from  the  pale  of  the  one  Catholic  Church ;  and  in 
these  distractions  there  could  be  no  peace  for  any  man,  till  he 
once  resolved  to  silence  his  own  doubting,  unbelieving  temper, 
and  submitted  himself  to  the  infollible  authority  of  the 
Church.  He  said  he  could  well  understand  the  state  of  my 
mind,  and  would  not  for  the  world  exchange  for  it  his  own 
quiet  and  undoubting  faith  in  the  Church.  If  a  subtle  argu- 
ment was  subjected  to  him  and  he  could  not  answer  it,  he  felt 
it  must  be  wrong,  as  being  "opposed  by  infalhbility — if  a 
doubting  feeling  passed  for  a  moment  across  his  mind  as  to 
any  Catholic  truth,  it  was  at  once  silenced  by  resting  on  infal- 
libility. And  as  to  all  the  sects  and  parties  into  which  we 
were  divided,  as  to  all  the  opinions  that  were  discussed  and 
debated  among  us,  they  were  at  once  disposed  of  by  an  ap- 
peal to  infallibility ;  and  he  added  that  I  could  never  have 
quiet  of  heart,  or  peace  of  mind,  until  I  had  unreservedly 
flung  from  me  every  previous  opinion,  and  every  judgment  of 
my  own,  so  as  to  accept  unreservedly  and  with  implicit  faith, 
the  judgment  of  the  Church  of  Rome. 

I  replied  to  all  this  in  an  earnest  and  affectionate  tone  ;  I 
felt  he  was  sincere ;  I  therefore  stated  that  I  had  been  in  the 
habit  of  regarding  the  Holy  Scriptures  as  infalHble,  as  being 
the  Word  of  God,  especially  as  it  was  expressly  said  that  "  all 
Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God,"  and  that  I  con- 
ceived that  all  the  advantages  which  he  imagined  in  connec- 
tion with  the  infallibiliti/  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  were 
enjoyed  by  myself  in  connection  with  this  infallibility  of  the 
Holy  Scciptiires.  Having  stated  this,  and  having  with  all 
warmth  of  heart  portrayed  to  him  the  preciousness  of  the 
Word  of  God  to  the  soul — the  light  that  shone  from  its 
pages,  the  comforts  that  were  in  its  promises,  the  blessedness 
that  it  portrayed,  the  love  of  Christ  that  it  exhibited,  the  full- 
ness for  our  salvation  which  characterized  it — having  stated 
all  this,  and  pressed  on  him  the  peace  and  joy  and  blessed- 


INFALLIBILITY    OF   THE    CHURCH.  445 

ness  he  would  find  iu  tlie  study  of  it ;  promising  tliat  he 
would  realize  as  David  did,  that  the  Word  was  "  sweeter  than 
houey  and  the  honeycomb" — having  stated  all  this,  I  con- 
cluded by  reminding  him  that  the  difficulty  on  my  mind  was, 
that  he  had  never  shown  me  that  there  was  any  infallible 
tribunal,  other  or  beside  this,  in  the  Church  of  Rome.  There 
could  be  no  doubt  orTiesitation  in  at  once  submitting  to  it,  if 
once  its  existence  were  proved.  I  therefore  asked  him  to 
prove  to  me  the  existence  of  this  other  infallible  tribunal  be- 
side the  Holy  Scriptures ;  and  I  pressed  on  him  that  as  he 
had  urged  me  to  have  recourse  to  it,  he  was  bound  at  least  to 
prove  to  me  its  existence. 

He  said  that  it  was  scarcely  necessary  to  undertake  to 
prove  that  which  was  universally  admitted,  namely,  that 
there  was  in  the  Church  an  infallible  authority.  It  was 
proved  by  the  necessity  for  its  existence.  The  Church  could 
not  go  on  without  it.  There  could  be  no  unity  without  it. 
All  would  be  private  judgment,  and  division,  and  distraction 
without  it.  All  peace,  and  order,  and  certainty  would  vanish- 
away  without  it.  And  the  Church  would  necessarily  become 
a  field  of  contention  instead  of  peace,  and  a  scene  of  division 
instead  of  unity,  if  such  an  infallible  authority  did  not  exist, 
to  restrain,  silence,  certify  on  all  things.  There  is  thus  a  ne- 
cessity of  the  highest  kind  for  the  existence  of  this  infallible 
authority  ;  and  we  thus  prove  it  by  this  necessity  for  its  exist- 
ence. Without  it  there  would  be  endless  inconvenience.  With 
it  there  are  incalculable  advantages. 

I  replied  that  all  this  seemed  to  me  to  prove  only  that  au- 
thority  was  desirable — an  authority  which  could  influence  the 
mind  and  calm  the  contentions  of  men  ;  but  that  it  did  not 
prove  the  existence  of  an  infallible  authority^  which  was  the 
point  before  us.  I  said  that  an  example  would  illustrate  this. 
In  the  civil  state  an  authority  was  necessary  to  restrain  the 
wicked,  and  there  must,  therefore,  be  an  authority  in  the  law, 
and  an  authority  in  the  executive,  or  the  whole  social  state 
— the  whole  fabric  of  civil  society — would  crumble  in  toruin. 
That  authority  suppresses  treason,  rebellion,  murder,  robbery, 


446  EVENINGS    WlXn   THE    ROMANISTS. 

and  all  crimes  against  the  well-being  of  society,  and  there  is 
a  necessity  for  this ;  but  there  is  no  necessity  for  infallible 
laws  and  an  infallible  authority  in  the  civil  power  for  this. 
There  is  need  for  authority  in  the  civil  sovereign,  but  no  need 
of  infallible  authority  ;  and  in  like  manner,  though  his  argu- 
ment went  to  prove  the  need  of  authority  in  the  Church,  it 
showed  no  need  of  infallible  authority. 

He  saw  this,  and  acknowledged  it,  but  he  added,  that  it 
would  be  of  immense  advantage  that  the  authority  in  the 
Church  should  be  infallible,  as  by  being  infallible  it  silenced 
not  only  the  contentions  and  divisions  and  controversies  of 
men,  but  silenced  also  the  very  doubts,  as  they  arose  in  the 
minds  of  men.  He  argued,  therefore,  that  the  great  import- 
ance and  value  of  the  thing,  the  convenience  of  having  an  in- 
fallible tribunal,  was  a  presumptive  argument  to  prove  the  ex- 
istence of  the  thing.  Look,  he  said,  at  the  state  of  your  Prot- 
estant Churches.  They  are  divided  and  torn  asunder,  the  very 
soldiers  that  crucified  the  Blessed  Saviour  would  not  rend  his 
garment,  but  cast  lots  for  it,  rather  than  tear  it,  but  the  Prot- 
estants, worse  than  these  Pagans,  tear  the  precious  garment, 
the  Church  of  Christ,  into  fragments  !  It  is  not  too  much  to 
say  that  between  the  Church  of  England  and  Scotland,  Epis- 
copalian and  Presbyterian,  and  Methodist,  and  Baptist,  and  In- 
dependent, and  Moravian,  and  Irvingites,  and  Mormonites,  and 
others,  there  are  above  a  hundred  different  sects  and  parties, 
and  yet  they  all  appeal  to  the  Holy  Scriptures,  they  all  ac- 
knowledge the  Scriptures  as  their  infaUible  authority — their  in- 
fallible rule  of  faith,  but  in  their  interpretation  of  it,  all  their 
divisions  arise.  Now  in  this  state  of  things,  there  is  evidence 
of  the  necessity  or  at  least  the  immense  importance  of  an  in- 
fallible tribunal  to  judge  between  them,  to  heal  their  divisions 
and  bring  all  these  discordant  elements  so  as  to  mold  them 
into  harmony.  It  is  like  the  necessity  for  omnipotence  to 
bring  order  out  of  chaos  at  creation.  And  this  afibrds  strong 
ground  for  the  belief  that  such  an  infallible  authority  really 
exists.  And  again,  when  reading  the  Scriptures  it  iS  impos- 
sible to  avoid  seeing  that  they  are  "  hard  to  be  understood." 


INFALLIBILITY    OF    THE    CHURCH.  447 

Indeed  an  apostle  expressly  says  they  are  so,  and  looking  at 
the  multiplicity  of  interpretation,  which  have  been  put  on  each 
passage,  so  contrary  one  to  another,  it  is  not  possible  to  feel 
otherwise  than  wshing  for  an  infallible  authority  to  decide 
for  us. 

I  replied  by  saying  that  I  could  readily  admit  that  to  allay 
strife  and  contention — to  put  an  end  to  the  endless  divisions 
of  the  Church — and  to  quiet  doubting  minds,  and  settle  every 
disputed  tenet,  would  be  very  desirable,  and  if  an  infallible 
authority,  other  and  beside  the  Holy  Scriptures,  could  be 
found  to  do  this,  it  would  be  very  desirable  indeed  ;  but  I  said, 
the  defect  of  his  whole  reasoning  was  his  supposing  that  to 
wish  for  it,  was  a  proof  that  we  had  it,  or  that  our  thinking  it 
desirable,  was  any  real  proof  that  it  existed.  The  desirable- 
ness of  any  thing  is  no  proof  that  the  thing  exists.  The  con- 
venience— the  supposed  convenience — of  a  thing,  is  no  evidence 
that  it  really  exists.  It  may  seem  very  convenient  and  desir- 
able, that  all  pain  and  disease  and  sorrow  should  be  banished 
from  our  nature — that  at  least  an  elixir  vitce  that  could  effect- 
ually heal  them  all,  should  be  revealed  to  our  science.  It  may 
seem  to  be  convenient,  and  desirable  that  the  fountain  of 
youth  and  life,  in  which  mortals  had  only  to  bathe  and  be- 
come young  again,  and  immortal  on  earth,  should  be  not  a 
fable  but  a  reality,  and  that  the  Styx  might  still  be  available, 
in  which  we  might  plunge  and  become  invulnerable.  It  may 
seem  marvelously  desirable  that  all  doubts  and  difficulties  and 
mental  conflicts  should  be  shut  out  from  the  people  of  God, 
that  all  divisions  and  distractions  should  be  prevented  in  the 
Church,  rather  than  they  should  first  be  permitted,  and  then 
that  an  infallible  tribunal  should  be  required  to  remedy  them, 
it  being  more  desirable  and  convenient  to  prevent  the  evil  than 
to  remedy  it.  It  may  seem  desirable  and  convenient  to  exclude 
all  possibility  of  sin  by  making  each  one  of  us  infallible  in  him- 
self— having  an  infixllible  judgment  in  himself,  and  so  needing 
no  appeal  elsewhere.  It  may  seem  desirable  and  convenient 
that  there  should  be  no  death  after  life,  and  no  hell  after  death, 
for  the  punishment  of  the  lost.     These  and  a  thousand  things, 


448  EVENINGS    WITH   THE    ROMANISTS. 

as  infallible  kings  as  well  as  infallible  bisbops — infallible  mag- 
istrates as  well  as  infallible  priests — infallible  parliaments  of 
statesmen  as  well  as  infallible  councils  of  cburcbes.  These 
and  a  thousand  things  may  seem  desirable  and  convenient, 
but  this  is  no  proof  that  they  really  exist ;  and  our  present 
question  is  not  as  to  the  desirableness  or  convenience  of  infal- 
lible authority,  our  question  is  as  to  the  reality  and  existence  of 
such  an  authority.  Have  you,  I  asked,  have  you  a  proof  of 
the  reality  and  existence  of  such  an  infallible  tribunal  in  your 
Church  ? 

He  was  evidently  conscious  that  he  had  failed  thus  far,  and 
that  he  must  advance  something  more  definite  and  logical  on 
a  point  of  so  much  importance.  He  said,  after  a  pause,  that 
it  was  impossible  to  suppose  that  God  would  have  left  the 
Church  without  such  an  infallible  tribunal,  such  a  tribunal  as 
could  settle  every  contention,  breathe  calm  into  every  soul, 
still  and  speak  peace  to  every  ruffled  spirit,  and  give  assurance 
and  safety  to  all.  He  was  a  God  of  love,  whose  love  for  his 
people  was  infinite.  He  was  a  God  of  mercy  whose  compas- 
sion rested  upon  all  His  poor,  weak  and  suffering  people,  and  it 
was  impressible  to  have  a  just  sense  of  His  lovnng  and  merciful 
nature,  and  suppose  He  could  have  left  us  without  such  an 
infallible  authority  as  seemed  so  useful,  salutary,  and  necessary. 

I  answered  this  by  saying  that  it  seemed  to  me  irreverent 
toward  God  to  say  that  he  ought  to  have  given  us  any  thing 
— that  it  was  illogical  to  argue  that  he  must  have  given 
it  to  us  because  we  think  it  desirable  or  convenient.  We 
ought  never  to  argue  as  to  what  God  ought  to  have  done,  or 
what  God  could  have  done.  "We  ought  only  to  argue  as  to 
what  God  has  done. 

And  I  endeavored  to  illustrate  the  fallacy  of  such  process 
of  reasoning,  by  saying,  it  might  seem  to  us  only  consistent 
with  the  mercy  and  love  of  our  merciful  and  loving  God,  to 
invest  us  with  an  infallible  judgment  ourselves,  so  as  to  be 
able  to  protect  ourselves  from  error — it  might  seem  only  con- 
sistent with  the  mercy  and  love  of  our  merciful  and  loving 
God  to  remove  sin  so  far  from  us,  in  fact  to  remove  it  from  ou.t 


INFALLIBILITY    OF   THE    CHURCH.  449 

world,  so  as  to  spare  us  from  tbe  possibility  of  temptation  or 
of  sin — it  might  seem  too,  only  consistent  witli  the  love  and 
mercy  of  our  loving  and  merciful  God  to  close  the  abyss  of 
Hell,  and  thus  seal  up  forever  the  mouth  of  that  destrojnng 
gulf,  that  so  none  might  ever  perish  within  its  torments  and 
its  horrors.  But,  I  argued,  that  however  all  this  might  seem 
only  consistent  with  the  love  and  mercy  of  God,  we  knew  by 
plain  and  universal  experience,  that  there  is  a  fallacy  in  all 
such  reasoning  ;  for  we  know,  by  melancholy  experience,  that 
we  have  a  liability  to  temptation  and  sin  and  death,  and  that 
we  have  not  an  iufallible  judgment.  I  said  that  all  such 
reasoning  was  not  only  illogical  but  irreverent. 

He  seemed  to  feel  this ;  and  when  I  perseveringly  pressed 
him  to  advance  some  other  argument  or  evidence  as  to  the 
existence  of  an  infallible  authority  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  he 
was  compelled  to  confess  that  he  was  not  prepared  with  other 
proofs — that  he  had  thought  these  suflBcient.  It  remained, 
therefore,  only  for  me  to  jjress  on  him  that  he  ought  not  to 
peril  his  soul's  health  and  salvation  on  what  he  supposed  to  be 
an  infallible  authority,  when  he  was  unable  to  prove  the  reality 
of  such  an  infallibility  ;  and  all  the  more  when  these  were  the 
Holy  Scriptures — the  God-inspired  volume — which  were 
necessarily  infallible,  and  which  he  admitted  to  be  infallible. 

Our  conversation  ended  here. 

It  vnW  here  be  observed  that  in  this  method  of  reasoning 
on  the  subject  of  infallibility  there  has  been  no  argument  from 
the  Holy  Scriptures — no  passage,  no  promise,  appealed  to,  as 
justifying  the  Church  of  Rome  in  a  claim  to  infallibility. 
There  are  indeed  certain  texts — two  in  number — which  are 
appealed  to  by  the  unlearned,  but  seldom  by  the  learned. 
One  is  that  place  where  our  Lord  says — "  The  gates  of  Hell 
shall  not  jDrevail  against  my  Church,"  and  the  other,  where 
He  promised  to  His  apostles — "  Lo  !  I  am  with  you  always, 
even  to  the  end  of  the  world." 

The  first  is  in  Matt.  xvi.  18.  Our  Lord  states  that  He 
would  build  His  Church  upon  a  rock,  and  adds — "  The  gates 
of  Hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it."     The  word  "  Hell "  in 


450  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

the  original,  is  "  Hades,"  the  term  usually  applied  to  express 
the  grave  or  death — the  invisible  world.  As  when  Jacob 
says,  his  gray  hairs  would  be  brought  down  in  sorrow  to  the 
grave.  This  word  is  the  same  ;  and  when  it  is  said  of  our 
Lord,  that  he  was  not  to  be  left  in  Hell  to  see  corruption,  it 
plainly  alludes  to  the  resurrection  of  His  body,  which  was  not 
to  be  left  in  the  grave  so  long  as  to  become  corrupted.  "  The 
gates  of  Hell,"  therefore  simply  means  "  the  gates  of  the 
grave,"  in  other  words,  it  is  a  figurative  expression  of  the 
power  of  death  ;  and  our  Lord  means  that  death  or  the  grave 
shall  never  prevail  against  His  Church^that  it  shall  never 
cease,  shall  never  die — shall  live  and  last  forever. 

This  is  the  true  promise  of  our  Lord  to  His  Church,  a 
promise  of  j^erpetuity,  a  promise  of  immortality.  And  it  is 
just  like  the  promise  of  final  safety  and  preservation  to  His 
faithful  people.  He  says — "  They  shall  be  mine  in  that  day 
when  I  gather  up  my  jewels."  He  says — "  I  will  raise  them 
up  at  the  last  day."  He  says — "  I  will  receive  them  unto 
myself,  that  where  I  am  there  they  may  be  also."  He  says 
all  this  as  to  the  final  result — "  They  shall  never  perish, 
neither  shall  any  man  pluck  them  out  of  my  hand,"  but  in 
saying  this  He  does  not  promise  that  they  shall  never  through 
life  fall  into  any  error,  or  into  any  sin — in  saying  this  He  does 
not  promise  that  they  shall  be  infallible,  but  only  that  they 
shall  be  brought  through  their  errors  and  their  sins,  brought 
through  repentance  and  faith,  to  their  final  salvation.  And  so 
is  the  promise  respecting  His  Church.  It  shall  never  cease, 
but  shall  live  and  last  forever.  It  is  invested  with  perpetuity 
and  clothed  with  immortality.  It  is  not  that  no  sin  and  no 
error  shall  ever  reach  it.  It  is  not  that  infallibility  shall  be 
her  privilege,  but  that  death  and  the  grave  shall  never  prevail 
against  her. 

The  second  text  is  in  Matt.  xx\nii.  20.  Our  Lord  desires 
His  apostles  to  go  forth  and  preach  the  Gospel  to  the  world ; 
and  for  their  comfort  and  encouragement.  He  promises  to  be 
with  them  to  the  end — "  Lo,  I  am  with  you  always  to  the 
end  of  the  world."     This  was  endently  a  promise  to  sustain 


INFALLIBILITY    OF   THE    CHURCH.  461 

them  amid  the  troubles,  sorrows,  difficulties,  disappoint- 
ments, and  persecutions  wliicli  they  were  destined  to  suflFer. 
And  it  implies  that  He  by  His  Spirit  would  be  with  them  to 
sustain  and  keep  them.  And  that  for  the  encouragement  and 
comfort  of  all  that,  like  them,  are  sent  forth  to  preach  the 
same  gospel  through  all  after  ages.  He  has  graciously  added 
that  He  would  be  with  them  to  the  end  of  the  world. 

But  this  does  not  imply  infaUibility.  Indeed  it  was  after 
that  that  Peter  fell  into  his  error,  noticed  in  Gal.  ii.  11,  where 
"  he  was  to  be  blamed,"  as  having  "  dissembled"  and  "  walked 
not  uprightly  according  to  the  truth  of  the  gos2')eV  It,  there- 
fore, could  not  have  implied  personal  infallibility  to  him,  either 
in  conduct  or  in  teaching,  and  much  less  to  any  individual 
person  of  later  times.  The  words,  however,  can  not  imply 
infallibility,  for  the  very  same  promise  was  made  to  all  Chris- 
tian persons :  "  when  two  or  three  are  gathered  together  in 
my  name,  there  am  I  in  the  midst."  And  yet  no  one  would 
think  of  inferring  that  every  prayerful  assembly  of  two  or 
three  Christians  is  infallible  ;  and  yet,  if  the  promise  to  be 
with  the  apostles  implies  an  infallibility  either  against  sin  or 
error,  then  the  promise  to  be  with  all  prayerfurchristians  who 
assemble  in  the  name  of  Christ,  will  involve  an  infallibility 
against  sin  and  error,  and  so  all  Protestant  assemblies  for 
worship  would  be  as  entitled  to  this  privilege  of  infallibility  as 
those  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  The  simple  truth  is,  that  the 
promise  of  our  Lord  is  not  a  promise  of  infallibility,  but  a 
gracious  and  loving  promise  to  all  who  preach  His  gospel,  that 
whatever  be  their  trials,  difficulties  and  dangers,  He  will  be 
with  them  to  sustain  and  comfort  and  bless  them. 

But,  as  has  been  already  stated,  these  texts  are  seldom  cited 
unless  by  the  unlearned ;  at  least,  such  has  been  my  expe- 
rience. When  conversing  with  the  learned  of  the  Church 
of  Rome,  I  have  found  them  speak  of  the  promises  to  the 
Church  as  a  whole.  They  seemed  to  take  them  in  the  mass, 
so  to  speak,  and  to  argue  that  they  seemed  to  imply  some 
wonderful  privilege,  like  exemption  from  error,  in  other  words, 
like  infallibility. 


452  EVENINGS   "WITH   THE    ROMANISTS. 

On  one  occasion  of  this  kind,  I  replied,  that  whatever  were 
the  words  of  promise  to  the  .Church  of  the  New  Testament,  as 
seeming  to  imply  a  privilege  of  this  nature,  the  words  of  prom- 
ise to  the  Church  of  the  Old  Testament,  to  the  Jewish  priest- 
hood, seemed  to  involve  still  loftier  privileges.  Every  text,  I 
said,  cited  in  the  New  Testament,  that  tended  to  imply  author- 
ity or  infallibility  to  the  Church  of  the  New  Testament,  was 
eclipsed  far  away  by  stronger  and  clearer  texts  of  the  Old 
Testament,  that  seemed  to  imply  more  fully  and  certainly  the 
authority  and  infallibility  of  the  Church  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment ;  and,  I  argued,  that  if  the  texts  usually  cited,  prove  the 
infallibility  of  the  Christian  Church,  much  more  will  the  texts 
of  the  Old  Testament  prove  the  infallibility  of  the  Jewish 
Church.  All  these  cited  by  the  Eomanists  are  far  more  than 
paralleled  and  over-balanced  in  force  and  clearness  by  those 
which  might  be  cited  by  Jews  in  favor  of  the  infallibility  of 
the  Jewish  Church.  For  example — it  is  said  of  the  Jewish, 
priests  that  they  were  to  be  the  teachers  of  the  statutes  of  the 
Lord,  Lev.  x.  1 1  ; — that  they  were  to  teach  Jacob  the  law  and 
Israel  the  judgment  of  the  Lord,  Deut.  xxxiii.  10  ; — that  they 
were  to  keep  knowledge,  and  that  the  people  were  to  seek 
the  law  at  the  mouths  of  the  priests,  for  that  they  were  the 
messengers  of  the  Lord  of  Hosts,  Mai.  ii.  1 ; — that  in  every 
controversy,  in  every  matter  too  hard  for  the  judgment  of  the 
people  th^y  were  to  come  to  the  priests,  who  should  determine 
the  matter,  and  who  were  specially  named  and  appointed  to 
judge  and  decide  in  all  controversies,  Deut.  xvii.  3.  2  Chron. 
xix.  8  ; — that  "  they  shall  teach  my  people  the  difference  be- 
tween the  holy  and  profane,  etc.,  and  in  controversy  shall  they 
stand  in  judgment,"  Ezek.  xliv.  24  ;  and  "  by  their  word  shall 
every  controversy  and  every  stroke  be  tried." — Deut.  xxi.  5. 
All  this  is  language  in  reference  to  the  Jewish  priesthood  far 
stronger  than  any  ISnguage  cited  in  reference  to  the  Christian 
ministry.  All  this  is  language  implying  far  more  power,  au- 
thority, judgment,  as  the  privilege  of  the  Jewish  Church,  than 
is  implied  in  any  passage  cited  as  applicable  to  the  Christian 
Church,  and  therefore,  if  the  feebler  and  weaker  texts  cited  by 


INFALLIBILITY    OF    THE    CHURCH.  453 

Romanists,  will  prove  tlie  infallibility  of  the  Roman  Church, 
then  will  those  stronger  and  clearer  texts  prove  the  infallibility 
of  the  Jewish  Church. 

This  arofument  becomes  stronger  still  when  we  consider  the 
wonderful  promises  made  to  the  Jewish  Church  and  Jewish 
priesthood,  to  the  effect  that  God  himself  would  dwell  in  the 
midst  of  them,  and  bless  them,  and  keep  them — that  He  was 
there  by  his  special  presence  in  the  Holy  of  Holies — that  he 
had  constituted  them  to  be  a  Sanhedrim  or  council  to  judge 
all  causes  and  controversies  in  Jerusalem — that  he  had  given  in 
the  midst  of  them  a  standing  oracle,  the  Urim  and  Thummim 
which  they  could  at  all  times  consult — When  we  consider 
that  God  had  given  such  great  privileges,  and  promised  such 
vast  blessings  to  the  Jewish  Church,  we  can  not  but  feel  on 
contrasting  them  with  the  few  feeble  texts  cited  by  Romanists 
in  behalf  of  their  Church,  that  if  these  latter,  weak  and  feeble 
as  they  are,  involve  an  infallibility,  thus  much  more  will  those 
stronger  and  clearer  texts  prove  the  infallibility  of  the  Jewish 
Church.  How  triumphantly  would  the  Romanists  boast,  if 
they  could,  like  the  Jews,  cite  passages  to  prove  specially  that 
their  priests  were  appointed  by  God  to  determine  every  hard 
matter  and  decide  every  controversy — if  they  could,  like  the 
Jews,  cite  the  statement  that  their  priests  were  specially  named 
as  having  the  law,  and  that  the  people  were  to  seek  it  at  their 
lips — if  they  could,  like  the  Jews,  prove  that  they  had  the 
shekinah  of  the  divine  presence  in  the  Church  of  St.  Peter, 
and  the  Urim  and  Thummim  in  the  Vatican  of  their  popes — 
if  they  could,  like  the  Jews,  find  clear  evidence  that  the  seventy 
cardinals  constituted  a  divinely  appointed  sanhedrin  or  council 
for  the  determining  every  controversy !  If  indeed  the  advo- 
cates of  the  Church  of  Rome  could  do  this,  they  might  seem  to 
be  doing  something,  they  might  seem  to  be  proving  theii  claim 
to  infallibility,  and  yet,  after  all  it  would  be  only  seeming  to 
do  so,  for  it  would  be  only  placing  themselves  on  a  level  with 
that  Jewish  Church  which  was  any  thing  but  infallible, 
which   was   charged   by  God  himself  with   apostasy,  rebel- 


464  EVENINGS    "WITH    THE    ROMANISTS, 

lion,  idolatry,  and  which  in  the  end  rejected  His  Sou  Jesus 
Christ ! 

This  argument  I  pressed  strongly  and  in  much  detail  on  my 
opponent,  as  an  answer  to  all  the  feeble  texts  which  he  was 
classing  together,  as  implying  or  involving  infallibility  for  the 
Roman  Church. 

He  replied — as  I  had  anticipated — with  the  statement,  that 
as  the  texts  cited  by  him  involved  the  infaUibility  of  the 
Christian  Church,  so  the  texts  cited  by  me  implied  the  infalli- 
biHty  of  the  Jewish  Church  ;  that  he  believed  and  held,  and 
all  the  ablest  divines  of  Rome  believed  and  held,  that  the  Jew- 
ish Church  was  infallible — that  the  texts  cited  proved  it.  And 
he  added  that  his  argument  was,  that  when  God  had  invested 
the  Jewish  Church  with  such  infallibility,  how  much  more 
may  we  infer  that  he  has  also  invested  the  Christian  Church 
with  equal  privileges,  and,  esj^ecially,  infallibility.  "  My  argu- 
ment," he  said,  "  assumes  the  infallibility  of  the  Jewish 
Church,  and  on  that  I  found  the  conclusion  in  behalf  of  the 
infallibility  of  the  Christian  Church." 

In  reply  to  this,  which  is  a  favorite  argument  with  modern 
Romanists,  I  reminded  him  that  the  Jewish  Church  could  not 
have  been  infallible,  for  every  form  of  open  and  secret  idolatry 
was  committed  by  the  Jews  in  the  days  of  Ahab  and  his  suc- 
cessors— that  the  promises  of  God  upon  which  the  claim  of 
infallibility  was  based,  were  promises  made  to  the  whole  house 
of  Israel,  and  could  not  imply  infallibility,  for  no  less  than  ten 
of  the  tribes  fell  off  and  worshiped  the  calves  of  Dan  and 
Bethel — that  besides  the  sin  of  idolatryj  they  are  charged  by 
God  himself  with  apostasy,  leaving  him  for  Baal  and  Ashter- 
oth  and  the  gods  of  the  heathen,  worshiping  in  the  groves 
and  high  places,  and  under  the  green  trees,  giving  even  their 
children  to  Moloch — that  they  had  so  utterly  fallen  from  God 
that  he  gave  them  into  the  hands  of  their  enemies,  and  the 
temple  was  burned,  and  the  sacred  vessels  carried  away,  and 
Jerusalem  destroyed,  and  the  people  sent  into  captivity — that 
after  all  this,  when  he  sent  His  Son  Jesus  Christ,  the  long- 
promised  and  long-expected   Messiah,   the   very  sanhedrim, 


INFALLIDILITY    OF    THE    CHDRCH.  456 

priests,  people,  all  rejected,  crucified,  and  killed  him.  The 
whole  history  of  the  Jews,  from  their  call  to  their  dispersion, 
proves  that  the  Jewish  Church  was  not  infallible. 

My  friend  answered  that  their  rejection  of  Jesus  Christ  only 
proved  that  they  were  not  then  infallible.  Jesus  Christ  was 
then  present,  and  in  him  the  infallibility  resided,  and  when  he 
was  among  them,  it  was  He,  and  not  they,  who  posssessed  the 
infallibility. 

I  said  that  I  wvas  aware  of  that  view,  as  it  was  urged  by 
Bossuet  in  his  conference  with  Claude — that  it  was  sufficiently 
ingenious,  but  that  it  failed  in  this,  that  my  argument  referred 
to  the  preceding  rebellions,  idolatries  and  apostasies  with 
which  God  himself,  in  all  his  prophets,  arraigns  the  Jewish 
Church.  I  asked  him  whether  such  charges  of  rebellion, 
idolatries  and  apostasies  were  consistent  with  the  possession  of 
infallibility. 

He  naturally  answered  that  he  could  not  think  that  iufalli- 
bihty  was  consistent  with  rebellion,  apostasy  and  idolatry. 

This  brought  our  argument  to  a  close,  with  the  remark  on 
my  part,  that  he  must  give  up  the  notion  of  the  infallibility  of 
the  Jewish  Church,  and,  consequently,  he  must  abandon  his 
argument  founded  thereon,  in  favor  of  the  infallibility  of  the 
Christian  Church. 

Infallibility  has  never  been  formally  claimed  by  the  Church 
of  Rome,  but  it  is  advanced  by  all  her  advocates.  Whenever 
their  arguments  from  Holy  Scripture  fail  them,  they  fall  back 
on  her  claim  to  infallibility.  This  circumstance  always  forces 
this  question  prominently  upon  us. 

I  was  once  brought  to  this  subject  by  a  very  astute  man, 
who  had  failed  in  his  argument. 

As  soon  as  he  fell  back  on  his  assertion  of  the  infaUibility 
of  the  Church,  I  stated  that  I  was  prepared  to  consult  with 
him  the  utterances  of  this  infallibility,  if  he  would  but  tell  me 
where  it  was  to  be  found.  He  had  asserted  the  existence  of 
an  infallible  tribunal  or  court  of  appeal  from  the  language  of 
Scripture,  and  it  was  necessary  that  we  should  know  this 
court,  that  we  might  bring  our  case  before  it ;  so  I  asked  him 


456  KVENINGS    WITH   THE    ROMANISTS. 

where  I  was  to  find  its  decisions — that  when  Paul  appealed  to 
Caesar  he  well  knew  where  his  appeal  was  to  be  heard — that 
inasmuch  as  he,  my  friend,  had  referred  his  case  to  some 
court  of  appeal,  which  he  declared  to  be  infallible,  it  was  an 
absolute  necessity  that  I  should  know  where  that  court  of  ap- 
peal was  to  be  found,  that  I  might  follow  the  appeal  and  hear 
and  know  its  decision  on  the  question.  I  felt  this  was  but 
reasonable. 

He  replied  that  he  was  aware  there  was  a  difference  of 
opinion  as  to  the  seat  of  this  court,  on  the  locality  in  which  it 
was  situated,  and  on  the  judge  who  determined  the  appeal. 
Some,  he  was  aware,  held  that  it  was  in  the  PoutiflT  as  suc- 
cessor of  St.  Peter — an  opinion  to  which  he  confessed  he 
could  not  agree — that  others  held  that  it  was  in  general  coun- 
cils as  representative  of  the  episcopacy  of  the  Avhole  Church,  a 
view  which  coincided  with  his  own.  He  added  that  when 
there  was  a  general  council,  especially  when  presided  over  by 
a  Pope,  or  by  a  legate  from  the  Pope,  and  when  the  decisions 
received  the  approval  of  the  Pope,  he  thought  there  could  be 
no  fair  exception  against  such  decisions  being  received  as  in- 
fallible. 

I  therefore  said,  "  you  acknowledge  that  some  of  the  best 
and  ablest  theologians  of  your  Church,  deny  the  infallibility 
of  general  councils,  even,  under  the  circumstances  you  pro- 
pose ;  you  admit  that  they  refuse  to  recognize  these  as  an 
infallible  court  of  appeal.  They  name  another  altogether  dif- 
ferent, even  the  papal  chalice  itself ;  now,  as  both  they  and 
you  follow  your  own  private  judgment  in  the  matter,  I  see  not 
why  I  may  not  follow  mine  also,  and,  with  so  many  of  your 
best  and  ablest  theologians,  refuse  submission  to  the  court 
which  you  suggest." 

He  said  at  once  that  their  unhappy  divisions  created  a  dif- 
ficulty, he  could  not  remedy  it,  he  could  deplore  it. 

I  then  said  that  supposing  I  consented  to  carry  the  appeal 
to  the  court  of  tribunal  of  general  councils,  as  he  proposed,  I 
was  anxious  to  know  what  it  was  that  constituted  the  essen- 
tials of  a  general  council  and  how  many  there  were. 


INFALLIBILITY    OF   THE    CHURCH.  457 

He  replied  that  a  general  council  was  supposed  to  be  an  as- 
sembly of  all  the  bishops  of  Christendom,  a  sort  of  parlia- 
ment, or  convocation  of  all  the  bishops  of  Christendom,  but 
he  could  not  answer  positively,  as  to  the  number,  as  there  was 
much  difference  among  their  theologians,  some  asserting  there 
were  sixteen,  some  fourteen,  some  twelve,  and  some  only 
eiacht. 

I  said  in  return  to  this,  that  so  wide  a  difference  of  opinion 
on  so  grave  a  question  was  very  serious.  You  difier  among 
yourselves  as  to  how  many  councils  are  infallible  as  being  gen- 
eral councils  !  I  added  that  for  myself  I  had  no  doubt  what- 
ever, for  if  a  general  council  is  a  council  of  all  the  bishops  of 
Christendom,  assembled  to  consult  and  decide  on  the  ques- 
tion's before  them,  there  never  has  been  a  real  general  council 
in  the  history  of  the  Church. 

He  asked  me  what  I  meant. 

I  replied  that  all  the  eight  councils,  usually  called  the  first 
eight  general  councils,  were  held  in  the  Eastern  and  not  in 
the  Western  Church — in  the  Greek  and  not  in  the  Latin 
Church.  And  that,  although  it  was  believed  that  in  the  first 
Council  of  Nice,  there  were  some  few  bishops  from  the  "West, 
yet  it  is  very  certain  that  at  the  second  of  Constantinople, 
at  the  third  at  Nice,  and  the  fourth  at  Constantinople,  al- 
though all  counted  as  general  councils,  there  was  not  a 
single  bishop  from  the  Churches  of  Western  Europe,  and  it 
is  most  uncertain  whether  there  were  any  either  by  per- 
son or  by  proxy  in  any  of  the  others  !  and  thus  these  so- 
called  general  councils  were  not  general  councils  at  all,  as 
representing  Universal  Christendom,  inasmuch  as  the  West- 
ern Churches  were  altogether  unrepresented  1 

He  answered  that  he  was  not  disposed  to  dispute  that 
fact,  for  that  there  were  so  many  hundreds  of  bishops  pre- 
sent at  these  councils,  that  on  that  account,  even  if  on  no 
other,  they  might  well  be  regarded  as  general  councils,  even 
though  they  might  not  actually  realize  the  ideal. 

I  said  that  we  had  scarcely  entered  upon  the  real  diflaculties 
of  bis  hypothesis,  which  placed  the  Court  of  Appeal  in  the  in- 

20 


458  EVENINGS    WITH   THE    ROMANISTS. 

fallibility  of  these  assemblies.  I  had  no  wish  to  assign  my 
reasons  for  piy  unfavorable  opinion  of  the  way  in  which  every 
thing  was  managed  in  them.  But  I  was  obliged  to  ask  on  what 
principle  some  of  these  councils  are  received,  and  some  of 
them  rejected.  I  could  myself,  I  said,  reject  them  all,  be- 
cause not  one  of  them  responded  to  the  ideal  of  a  general 
council,  but  I  could  not  comprehend  the  principal  on  which 
in  the  Church  of  Rome  some  are  received,  and  some  are 
rejected.  It  could  not  be  the  respect  and  reverence  due  to 
the  number  of  bishops  who  were  present,  because  those 
councils  which  were  remarkable  as  having  been  attended 
by  the  largest  number  ever  known  in  the  history  of  the 
Church,  are  rejected  and  condemned  by  all  writers  in  the 
Church  of  Rome,  while  some  that  were  attended  by  compar- 
atively few,  are  received  and  recognized  as  general  councils ! 
On  what  principle  was  this  done  ?  The  council  of  Ariminum, 
with  400  bishops  (a.  d.  359),  and  that  of  Carthage  with  562 
bishops  (a.  D.  411),  are  both  of  them  rejected,  while  the  Coun- 
cil of  Constantinople  with  only  150  bishops  (a.  d.  381),  and 
that  of  Ephesus  with  only  200  bishops  (a.  d.  481),  are  re- 
ceived as  general  councils  !  Now  if  general  councils  are  to 
be  held  as  infallible,  it  seems  necessary  to  determine  with 
great  accuracy,  what  constitutes  a  genei-al  council,  seeing  that 
the  number  of  bishops  does  not  do  it. 

My  friend  was  evidently  perplexed  at  this  startling  fact. 
He  seemed  not  to  have  been  aware  of  it,  and  hke  many  others 
had  been  carried  away  by  some  ideal  of  councils,  and  hearing 
of  such  assemblies,  had  been  at  no  pains  to  ascertain  why 
some  and  not  others  were  pronounced  infallible,  by  being 
pronounced  to  be  general. 

I  therefore  called  his  attention  to  another  difficulty,  and 
that  was  how  the  judgment  of  the  council  was  to  be  taken, 
whether  by  votes  or  otherwise.  The  importance  of  this  will 
appear  from  the  fact,  that  in  some  councils,  as  that  of  Con- 
stance (a.d.  1414),  they  voted  by  nations,  and  not  by  bish- 
ops, that  is,  each  nation  had  one  vote,  no  matter  how  many 
or  how  few  were  the  bishops  that  belonged  to  it,  so  as  that  a 


INFALLIBILITY    OF   THE    CHURCH.  459 

nation  with  only  ten  bishops  in  the  council,  had  as  effectual  a 
vote  as  a  nation  with  one  hundred  bishops,  and  thus  the  ten 
bishops'  vote  went  as  far  as  the  hundred  bishops'  vote.  In 
other  councils  they  voted  otherwise. 

And  then  we  may  ask,  whether  the  question  is  to  be  deter- 
mined by  the  majority,  especially  by  a  bare  majority,  as  in 
the  council  of  564  bishops,  who  divided  so  closely  that  there 
were  278  on  the  side  of  the  Donatists,  and  286  on  the  part  of 
the  Catholics — thus  giving  only  a  bare  majority  of  eight  in 
favor  of  the  truth  !  But  this  was  but  the  beginning  of  diffi- 
culties, as  sometimes  the  decision  seems  to  have  been  the 
wrong  way,  as  in  the  Council  of  Sileucia,  where  145  bishops 
voted  for  Arianism,  and  only  15  voted  for  the  truth.  This 
raises  the  question  as  to  whether  the  infallibility  goes  necessarily 
with  majorities,  as  in  this  case  Arianism  was  decreed,  and  the 
Trinity  condemned  by  an  overwhelming  majority.  Nor  did  I 
see  how  we  could  expect  it  otherwise,  as  there  are  evils  insep- 
arable from  all  such  assemblies,  especially  in  ancient  times, 
when  long  and  distant  journeys  were  dangerous.  The  bishops, 
whose  age  gave  them  wisdom  from  experience,  and  those 
whose  piety  made  them  love  attendance  on  their  flocks,  and 
those  whose  gentleness  recoiled  from  the  stormy  discussions 
of  councils,  and  whose  bodily  infirmities  all  conspired  to  keep 
them  from  the  councils,  were  absent,  while  the  younger,  more 
violent,  more  factious,  and  self-sufficient  were  able  to  accom- 
plish the  long  and  perilous  voyage,  and  take  part  in  discus- 
sions congenial  to  their  passionate  years.  In  such  councils,  it 
was  the  violence  of  youth,  rather  than  the  experience  of  age, 
determined  every  question,  and  it  is  therefore  we  are  plunged 
into  another  inextricable  difficulty  by  the  fact  that  these  coun- 
cils have  decided  the  same  question  in  opposite  and  different 
ways.  "  One  general  Council  at  Constantinople,  consisting  of 
about  368  bishops,  though  others  say  there  were  only  350, 
maintained  the  worship  of  them,  yet  as  soon  as  this  was  known 
in  the  West,  how  active  soever  the  see  of  Rome  was  for  estab- 
lishing their  worship,  a  council  of  about  300  bishops  met  at 


460  EVENINGS    WITH   THE   ROMANISTS. 

Frankfort  under  Charleraaofue,  whicli  condemned  the  Nicean 
Council  together  with  the  worship  of  images."  Burnet,  Art. 
xxii.  The  same  spirit  of  contradiction  prevailed  afterward, 
when  the  two  councils,  held  at  Constance  and  at  Basle,  pro- 
claimed the  authority  of  councils  to  be  superior  to  that  of 
popes,  while  at  the  same  period  the  two  other  councils,  that 
were  convened  at  the  Lateran  and  at  Ferrara,  declared  the 
authority  of  popes  to  be  superior  to  that  of  councils  !  Con- 
tradictions like  these  are  a  simple  confutation  of  their  claim  to 
being  infallible. 

Having  pointed  out  these  difficulties,  I  said  that  before  we 
could  consent  to  appeal  to  the  infallibility  of  councils,  it  would 
be  necessary  to  determine  what  constitutes  a  general  council 
— whether  there  ever  has  been  really  a  general  council — how 
the  infallible  decision  is  to  be  arrived  at,  whether  by  majorities 
or  otherwise — whether  a  small  or  bare  majority  can  be  sup- 
posed to  carry  the  infallibility  with  it — whether  the  majority 
having  voted  the  wrong  way  deprives  it  of  its  infallibility — 
whether  seeing  that  councils  have  decided  in  opposite  and  dif- 
ferent ways,  we  have  any  means  of  determining  which  decision 
is  the  voice  of  infallibility. 

That  my  friend,  though  an  astute  and  generally  a  very  adroit 
arguer  on  the  infallibility  of  the  Church,  was  perplexed  at 
those  inquiries  is  a  matter  of  no  surprise  to  me.  I  have  ob- 
served some  of  the  ablest  advocates  of  Rome,  on  subjects  on 
which  they  beheved  themselves  unassailable,  completely  de- 
feated by  being  taken  in  flank,  instead  of  debating  the  question 
in  their  accustomed  way.  My  friend  was  literally  helpless,  and 
he  could  not  help  acknowledging  that  the  subject  was  beset 
with  difficulties  which  he  had  not  anticipated.  Councils  were 
beset  with  difficulties  and  contradictions,  popes  were  entangled 
in  difficulties  and  worse  than  contradictions,  while  popes  were 
opposed  to  popes,  and  councils  were  opposed  to  councils,  and 
councils  were  against  popes,  and  in  their  turn  popes  were 
against  councils,  so  that  all  seemed  to  us  as  a  chaos  of  inextric- 
able entanglement,  and  amid,  around,  and  above  them  all,  was 


INFALLIBILITY    OF    THE    CHURCH.  461 

that  true  infallibility,  where  was  no  contradiction — the  infalli- 
bility of  the  God-inspired  book,  the  Holy  Scriptures.  This 
voice  of  infallibility  is  possessed  by  all  our  Protestant  Churches. 
To  this  we  appeal  in  all  our  controversies,  and  to  this — 
THE  ONLY  TRUE  INFALLIBILITY— we  invite  our  op- 
ponents. 


APPENDIX. 


-♦-•-»- 


THE   ANTIQUITY   OF   THE   CHURCH. 

The  Question,  "Where  was  the  Church  before  the  Reformation  answered — The  Ar« 
gument  of  Development  considered — The  new  Creed  of  Pope  Pius  IV. — Its  new 
Articles  of  Faith  detailed — The  Origin  and  Novelty  of  each  Article  illustrated — 
And  the  Novelty  of  the  Eeligion  of  Borne  demonstrated. 

It  is  scarcely  possible  to  converse  witli  members  of  the 
Church  of  Rome  on  subjects  of  religion,  without  hearing  much 
respecting  the  antiquity  of  their  Church.  It  is  supposed  by 
many  among  them  to  be  a  point  on  which  she  is  unassailable, 
especially  w^hen  she  is  brought  into  comparison  with  the 
Church  of  England  or  any  of  the  Protestant  Churches. 

In  every  class  of  social  life,  as  in  every  part  of  the  world, 
the  question  is  often  proposed  to  us  : 

Where  was  your  Church  before  Luther  ? 

In  Ireland,  this  question  is  usually  answered  by  another — 
namely : 

Where  was  your  face  before  it  was  washed  ? 

The  method  of  reply  has  certainly  more  of  point  than  of 
elegance,  and  suits  the  lively  temper  of  the  people  far  better 
than  some  dry  and  erudite  rejoinder.  But,  however,  inele- 
gant or  vulgar  it  may  be  deemed,  it  contains  the  germ  of  the 
true  answer — the  fittest  and  most  eflPective  answer  to  the  argu- 
ment supposed  to  be  involved. 

The    Church  of  England,  as    also   the   other   Protestant 


ANTIQUITY    OF   THE    CHURCH.  463 

Ghurclies,  were,  before  the  Reformation,  in  the  same  place  as 
they  occupy  since  that  event.  And  the  difference  is  not  in 
the  locality,  nor  in  the  identity,  but  in  the  fact — the  very 
intelligible  fact,  that  they  had  been  unreformed  and  are  now- 
reformed — had  been  corrupted  and  are  now  purified — had 
been  overlaid  with  errors  and  abuses,  and  are  now  cleansed. 
This  is  the  real  and  only  difference ;  it  is  not  in  their  iden- 
tity but  in  their  state — not  in  their  location,  but  in  their 
condition. 

When  our  Lord,  as  is  narrated  in  the  Gospels,  entered  the 
Temple  at  Jerusalem,  we  read,  that  he  found  it  in  a  state 
wholly  unbefitting  its  original  and  holy  purposes ;  he  found 
it  practically  a  market-place,  where  there  was  buying  and  sell- 
ing, and  traffic,  and  money -changing.  And  although  all  this 
was  introduced  for  the  convenience  of  the  worshipers,  that 
they  might  have  oxen,  and  sheep,  and  doves,  which  they  could 
thus  easily  purchase  for  sacrificing,  and  that  they  might  find 
no  inconvenience  from  the  want  of  money-changers  to  facili- 
tate such  purchases ;  yet,  much  as  might  be  said  of  its  con- 
venience, it  was  regarded  by  our  Lord  as  a  perversion  from 
its  original  design,  and  an  abuse  of  its  original  use.  It  is 
written  that  he  made  a  scourge  of  small  cords ;  drove  from 
the  Temple  those  that  bought  and  sold  ;  overthrew  the  tables 
of  the  money-changers,  and  the  seats  of  them  that  sold  doves, 
and  He  told  them  that  it  had  been  designed  as  "  a  house  of 
prayer,"  and  that  they  had  made  it  "  a  den  of  thieves."  In 
all  this  He  did  not  remove  a  pillar,  nor  change  a  column, 
nor  destroy  an  ornament,  nor  close  a  window,  nor  impair 
the  foundation.  He  left  the  Temple  itself  unchanged ;  He 
only  removed  the  corruptions  and  cast  out  the  abuses.  Just 
so,  the  Temple  after  the  Reformation  was  the  same  as  before 
that  event. 

This  was  the  Reformation  of  the  sixteenth  century. 

When,  in  like  manner,  we  repair  any  aged  or  venerable 
cathedral — when  time  has  impaired  its  stability,  and  years 
have  generated  an  accretion  of  decay,  and  the  moss  has  cov- 
ered its  aged  walls,  and  the    mold    has  traversed  its  noble 


464  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

arclies,  and  the  tendrils  of  the  ivy  have  clasped  its  lofty  pin- 
nacles, and  time  is  weakening  its  stately  columns,  and  the 
worm  is  eating  into  its  crumbling  roof — when,  anxious  to  pre- 
serve the  venerable  pile,  we  remove  the  moss  that  defiles  it,  the 
ivy  that  injures  it,  and  the  decay  that  is  destroying  its  beauty 
and  marring  its  usefulness,  we  are  surely  not  changing  the 
identity,  or  the  purposes  of  the  edifice — we  assuredly  are  not 
removing  its  foundation,  nor  varying  its  architecture,  but  we 
are  renovating  the  whole,  and  restoring  the  goodly  fabric  to 
its  ancient  beauty. 

Such  was  THE  Reformation  of  the  sixteenth  century. 

That  great  event  founded  no  new  Church,  and  established 
no  new  religion  in  the  world.  As  the  very  term  implies,  it 
was  only  a  purifying  the  Church  and  religion  of  Christ  from 
the  corruptions  and  abuses  which  time  and  circumstances  had 
introduced.  It  was  emphatically  a  Reformation  of  the  Church 
and  of  religion — it  was  not  the  invention  of  any  thing  new, 
but  the  reforming  of  the  old. 

This  is  the  just,  the  only  just  view  of  the  series  of  events 
connected  with  the  Reformation  ;  and  to  attempt  to  meet  it 
by  talking  about  the  antiquity  of  the  Church,  or  the  antiquity 
of  the  error,  or  the  antiquity  of  the  religion — to  attempt  to 
meet  it  by  thus  talking  about  the  antiquity  of  the  system,  is 
very  little  to  the  purpose.  Buddhism  and  Hindooism,  and  the 
classic  mythologies  of  Greece  and  of  Rome,  and  the  super- 
stitions of  Egypt,  may  claim  a  still  higher  and  remoter  an- 
tiquity. Mere  antiquity  in  itself  is  nothing.  And  it  were 
infinitely  more  satisfactory,  and  certainly  more  to  the  purpose, 
to  prove  that  a  Church  is  true  than  that  it  is  old  ;  and  to  show 
its  religion  to  be  conformable  to  the  Holy  Scriptures  than  that 
it  is  of  ancient  standing. 

This  argument,  however,  has  lately  undergone  considerable 
change,  and  its  new  phases  effectually  annihilate  all  that  was 
of  any  importance  in  its  original  form.  The  new  phase  is 
that  which  has  received  the  name  of  development.  The 
idea  involved  is,  that  originally  in  the  Christian  Church — in 
the  Church  of  Christ,  as  taught  by  Himself,  and  as  instructed 


ANTIQUITV    OF    THE    CHURCH.  465 

by  His  Apostles,  and  as  built  ap  by  the  primitive  Christians — 
that  in  this,  there  was  not  the  manifestation  or  development 
of  the  practices  of  the  Church  of  Rome — that  there  were  only 
the  grains,  or  seeds,  or  germs,  discernible  in  the  early  Church, 
from  which  in  after-times  these  doctrines  and  practices  have 
manifested  and  developed  themselves ;  in  other  words,  that 
trausubstantiation,  image-worship,  Mariolatry,  prayers  to  saints, 
worship  of  relics,  purgatory,  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass,  indulg- 
ences, supremacy  of  Rome,  and  all  her  other  peculiar  doc- 
trines and  practices,  are  now  in  a  state  and  condition  widely 
different  from  primitive  times — that  now  they  are  extended, 
enlarged,  magnified,  whereas  formerly  they  existed  only  in  the 
seed,  or  the  bud,  or  the  germ — that  now  they  constitute  the 
great  and  grand  essentials  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  whereas, 
in  primitive  times,  they  were  in  abeyance,  held  back,  con- 
cealed, vailed,  reserved,  and  unseen,  and  unknown,  and  unbe- 
lieved,  except  by  the  initiated  few — that  thus  all  these  doc- 
trines in  their  present  state  are  novel,  at  least  different  from 
former  times ;  in  other  words,  they  were  now  an  expansion, 
an  enlargement,  an  exaggeration,  a  development  of  the  past ; 
or  at  least  they  are  an  unvailing  of  what  was  concealed  be- 
fore, and  a  teaching  of  what  was  untaught  before.  They  as- 
sert, indeed,  that  the  Church  of  Rome  now  holds  nothing  but 
what  she  held  from  the  beginning ;  but  only  that  she  holds 
such  things  in  a  different  way,  and  in  a  different  degree,  and 
to  a  different  extent — that  she  held  such  things  in  primitive 
times  in  the  germ,  and  that  she  holds  them  in  the  present 
age  in  their  development ;  they  were  then  the  acorn,  and  are 
now  the  gigantic  oak. 

It  may  be  seen  that  there  is  in  the  essence  of  this  argu- 
ment, all  that  neutralizes  the  old  argument  founded  on  the 
supposed  antiquity  of  these  doctrines  and  practices.  It  shows 
that  they  all  have  undergone  a  change,  and  that  they  are  now 
in  a  state  very  diflferent  from  formerly.  Some  may  call  this 
novelty,  others  may  give  it  the  fanciful  name  of  development. 
It  certainly  is  an  admission  of  some  change — a  strange  ad- 
mission or  a  Church,  for  which  its  advocates  claim  the  attri- 

20* 


466  EVENINGS   WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

butes   of  uncliangeableness,   and  the   prerogative   of  infalli- 
bility. 

The  simple  truth  is,  that  the  old  claim  to  antiquity — the 
old  argument,  that  her  doctrines  and  practices  were  those  of 
primitive  Christianity,  has  been  exposed  and  annihilated  by 
the  progress  of  modern  research.  Her  advocates  have  been 
necessitated  to  retreat,  and  now  endeavor  to  hide  their  retreat 
under  the  name  of — development ! 

Nor  could  they  do  otherwise  than  retreat  from  this  argu- 
ment of  antiquity.  The  advocates  of  Protestant  Christianity 
laid  before  the  world  the  three  ancient  creeds  of  the  Churches 
— the  Apostles'  Creed — the  Nicene  Creed — the  Athanasian 
Ci'eed.  They  have  shown  these  to  have  been  the  only  Creeds 
of  the  primitive  Churches,  and  they  are  acknowledged  as 
such  by  all  the  writers  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  In  these,  the 
belief  of  the  primitive  Churches — in  these,  which  embody  all 
the  articles  of  the  faith  of  Christ  as  then  received,  and  be- 
lieved, and  professed — in  these  there  is  no  allusion  whatever, 
no  allusion  however  remote  or  shadowy,  to  any  one  of  those 
doctrines  which  constitute  the  essence  of  the  Church  of  Rome. 
These  three  creeds — the  creeds  of  primitive  Christianity  con- 
tain no  allusion  to  modern  Romanism,  no  allusion  to  transub- 
stantiation,  Marlolatry,  invocation  of  saints,  worship  of  relics, 
Purgatory,  sacrifice  of  the  mass,  indulgences,  supremacy  of 
Rome,  etc. — but  pass  them  by  as  if  they  had  been  utterly 
unknown,  and  unheard  of,  and  unbelieved. 

And  the  Church  of  Rome  has  felt  the  importance  of  all 
this- argument,  and  she  has  compiled  a  new  creed — a  new 
CREED  !  Having  examined  the  Nicene  Creed,  and  having 
seen  that  her  new  and  ftivorite  doctrines  were  not  embodied 
in  it,  she  went  boldly  to  the  work  and  has  actually  inserted 
them  into  it — has  actually  appended  twelve  new  articles  to 
this  ancient  creed  to  make  it  speak  in  her  favor  !  This  she 
did  in  the  year  1564. 

The  following  are  the  additional  articles,  thus  newly  invent- 
ed ,  and  then  first  inserted  in  the  Nicene  Creed. 

I.  "  I  most  steadly  admit  and  embrace  apostoUcal  and  eccle- 


ANTIQUITY    OF   THE    CHURCH.  467 

siastical  traditions,  and  all  other  observances  and  constitu- 
tions of  the  same  Church. 

II.  "  I  also  admit  the  Holy  Scriptures  according  to  the 
sense  which  our  Holy  Mother  the  Church  has  held  and  does 
hold,  to  which  it  belongs  to  judge  of  the  true  sense  and  inter- 
pretation of  the  Scriptures ;  neither  will  I  ever  take  and  inter- 
pret them  otherwise  than  according  to  the  unanimous  con- 
bent  OF  THE  FATHERS. 

III.  "  I  also  profess  that  there  are  truly  and  properly  seven 
SACRAMENTS  of  the  uew  law  instituted  by  Jesus  Christ  our 
Lord,  and  necessary  for  the  salvation  of  mankind,  though  not 
all  for  every  one ;  to  wit,  baptism,  confirmation,  eucharist, 
penance,  extreme  unction,  orders,  matrimony ;  and  that  they 
confer  grace ;  and  that  of  these,  baptism,  confirmation,  and 
orders,  can  not  be  reiterated  without  sacrilege. 

rV.  "  I  also  receive  and  admit  the  received  and  approved 
CEREMONIES  of  the  CathoHc  Church,  used  in  the  solemn  ad- 
ministration of  the  foresaid  sacraments. 

V.  "  I  embrace  and  receive  all  and  eveiy  one  of  the  things 
which  have  been  defined  and  declared  by  the  Holy  Council  of 
Trent,  concerning  original  sin  and  justification. 

VI.  "  I  profess  likewise,  that  in  the  mass  there  is  offered  to 
God  a  true,  proper,  and  propitiatory  sacrifice  for  the  Uving  and 
the  dead,  and  that  in  the  most  holy  sacrifice  of  the  eucharist, 
there  is  truly,  really,  and  substantially,  the  body  and  blood, 
together  with  the  soul  and  divinity  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
and  that  there  is  made  a  conversion  of  the  whole  substance  of 
the  bread  into  the  body,  and  of  the  whole  substance  of  the 
wine  into  the  blood ;  which  conversion,  the  Catholic  Church 
calls  Transubstantiatiou. 

Vn.  "  I  also  confess,  that  under  either  kind  alone,  Christ 
is  received  whole  and  entire,  and  a  true  sacrament. 

VIIL  "  I  certainly  hold  that  there  is  a  Purgatory,  and  that 
the  souls  therein  detained,  are  helped  by  the  suffrages  of  the 
faithful ;  hkewise  that  the  saints  reigning  together  with 
Chiist,  are  to  be  honored  and  invocated,  and  that  they  offer 


468  EVENINGS   WITH   THE   ROMANISTS. 

prayer  to  God  for  us,  and  that  their  relics  are  to  be  held  in 
veneration, 

IX.  "  I  most  firmly  assert  that  the  images  of  Christ,  of  the 
Mother  of  God,  ever  virgin,  and  also  of  other  saints,  may  be 
had  and  retained,  and  that  due  honor  and  veneration  are  to  be 
given  to  them. 

X.  "  I  also  affirm  that  the  power  of  indulgence  was  left  by 
Christ  in  the  Church,  and  that  the  use  of  them  is  most  whole- 
some to  Christian  people. 

XI.  "  I  acknowledge  the  Holy,  Catholic,  Apostohc,  Roman 
Church  for  the  Mother  and  Mistress  of  all  Churches  ; 
and  I  promise  true  obedience  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome, 
successor  to  St.  Peter,  prince  of  the  apostles,  and  vicar  of 
Jesus  Christ. 

XII.  "  I  likewise  imdoubtedly  receive  and  profess  all  other 
things  delivered,  defined,  and  declared  in  the  sacred  canons 
and  general  councils,  and  particularly  by  the  holy  Council 
OF  Trent.  And  I  condemn,  reject,  and  anathematize  all 
things  contrary  thereto,  and  all  heresies  which  the  Church  has 
condemned,  rejected,  and  anathematized.  I  do,  at  this  present 
freely  profess  and  sincerely  hold  this  Cathohc  faith,  without 
which  no  one  can  be  saved,  and  I  promise  most  constantly 
to  retain  and  confess  the  same  entire  and  inviolate,  with  God's 
assistance,  to  the  end  of  my  life. 

Such  are  the  novel  doctrines  of  the  Church  of  Rome. 
They  were  not  contained  in  any  ancient  creed — in  any  primi- 
tive creed  of  the  primitive  Churches,  and  therefore  the  Church 
of  Rome  has  been  obliged  to  invent  a  new  creed  to  contain 
them,  or  rather  she  has  interpolated  one  of  the  ancient  creeds 
by  the  addition  of  these  twelve  novel  articles.  To  this  new 
compilation  has  been  given  the  name — the  expressive  name 
of  the  creed  of  Pope  Pius  IV.  It  certainly  is  not  the  creed 
of  Ckrisfs  Church. 

And  this  new  creed — this  creed  of  the  Roman  Church,  was 
first  compiled  in  1564  !  They  sometimes  ask — where  was 
your  Church  before  Luther  ? — where  was  your  Church  before 
Henry  VIH  ?     One  might  suppose  that  their  own  creed  was 


ANTIQUITY    OP   THE    CHURCH.  469 

of  some  high  and  remote  antiquity,  when  they  propose  such 
questions ;  although  Luther  was  dead  and  buried,  and  Henry 
VIII.  was  gathered  to  his  fathers,  many  years  before  this  rehg- 
ion  or  creed  of  the  Church  of  Rome  was  compiled  ! 

But  let  us  des,jend  to  details. 

It  has  often  been  argued  against  me  by  the  advocates  of 
Rome,  that  if  we  have  rejected  her  pecuhar  doctrines  on  ac- 
count of  their  supposed  novelty,  we  ought  to  be  able  to  specify 
the  precise  time  when  each  novelty  was  introduced  into  the 
Church. 

I  have  always  closed  at  once  with  my  opponents  on  this 
argument,  and  have  undertaken  to  prove  the  precise  date  of 
every  doctrine.  I  have  declared  my  willingness  to  do  this, 
while  at  the  same  time  I  felt  it  was  not  necessary  for  my  po- 
sition. A  man  is  not  to  be  supposed  to  have  lived  from  the 
beginning  of  the  world,  merely  because  he  can  not  p)rove  the  pre- 
cise day  of  his  birth.  And  a  doctrine  is  not  to  be  deemed 
to  have  been  from  the  beginning  of  Christianity,  merely  be- 
cause we  can  not  specify  the  date  of  its  invention ;  indeed, 
we  are  warned  that  men  "  shall  privily  bring  in  damnable 
heresies,"  and  we  are  fore-cautioned  that  they  shall  "  creep  in 
unawares,^''  and  we  are  reminded  that  it  was  "while  men  slept 
the  enemy  sowed  the  tares."  These  words  imply  that  we 
should  not  be  able  to  detect  precisely  the  origin  of  error.  But 
although  we  may  be  unable  to  ascertain  the  exact  moment 
that  gave  birth  to  the  error,  yet  we  may  be  able  to  determine 
with  exactitude  the  time  when  the  error  was  formally  adopted 
and  recognized  and  avowed  by  the  Church  of  Rome — when 
the  error  was  no  longer  a  floating  and  unauthorized  opinion, 
but  became  adopted  into  the  canons,  and  embodied  in  the 
formularies  of  that  Church. 

These  may  be  considered  seriatim. 

I.  Tradition. 

The  first  article  is  on  Tradition.  It  has  been  justly  said  of 
Tradition,  that  it  is  appealed  to  as  the  origin  of  every  false 
religion,  and  for  the  support  of  every  error  engrafted  upon 


470  EVENINGS   WITH   THE    ROMANISTS. 

true  religion.  It  was  the  ai'gumeut  of  the  advocates  of  the 
Greek  and  Roman  mythology  in  defense  of  their  system — it 
was  the  argument  of  the  Jewish  Pharisees  in  support  of  the 
continuance  of  their  law — it  was  still  the  argument  of  the 
Brahmin  in  behalf  of  his  Hindooism,  and  of  the  Buddhist  in 
support  of  his  Buddhism — it  is  the  argument  of  all  error 
against  Christianity. 

The  doctrine,  therefore,  of  the  Church  of  Rome  respecting 
Tradition  can  not  be  reafarded  as  novel.  It  is  as  old  as  hea- 
thenism  itself.  But  the  adoption  of  the  principle  that  tradi- 
tion is  to  be  placed  on  a  level  with  the  Scripture — that  tradi- 
tionary doctrines  and  practices  are  to  be  "  received  and  vene- 
rated with  equal  piety  and  reverence,"  with  the  doctrines  and 
practices  taught  in  Holy  Scriptures — the  adoption  of  this 
principle  into  the  Church  of  Rome  is  undoubtedly  a  nov- 
elty. It  never  was  affirmed  till  the  Council  of  Trent  in  1545. 
In  all  previous  councils — ^in  all  those  that  had  been  held  from 
the  beginning  of  Christianity,  it  never  before  was  asserted  that 
the  traditions  of  the  Church  were  to  be  "  received  and  ven- 
erated with  equal  piety  and  reverence"  with  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures of  God.  And  this  novel  article  was  then  and  there 
adopted  for  the  first  time  in  the  history  of  Christianity,  and 
then  and  there  adopted  for  a  purpose.  They  could  not  confute 
the  arguments  of  the  Reformers  from  the  Holy  Scriptures. 
They  had  nothing  to  advance  but  antiquated  opinions  which 
they  said  were  traditionary :  and  to  justify  this,  they  framed 
and  adopted  this  principle — this  novel  article  of  faith  in  1545, 
and  inserted  into  their  creed  in  1564. 

The  same  may  be  said  of  her  insertion  of  the  apocryphal 
books  into  the  canon.  They  never  were  received  as  inspired 
by  the  Jewish  Church  ;  they  were  on  the  other  hand  rejected 
as  such,  as  Josephus  testifies ;  they  never  were  admitted  into 
the  canon  of  Holy  Scripture,  by  the  primitive  Church,  and 
they  are  excluded  from  each  and  every  ancient  list  of  canon- 
ical books,  and  it  was  never  till  the  Council  of  Trent,  in  1546, 
that  these  apocryphal  books  were  received  into  the  canon,  and 
thence  the  article  was  inserted  in  the  new  creed  in  1564,  and 


ANTIQUITY    OF   THE    CHURCH.  471 

was  so  inserted  for  no  better  reason  than  the  notion  that  they 
gave  some  color  to  one  or  two  of  the  practices  of  the  Church 
of  Rome. 

II.  The  interpretation  of  the  Holy  Scriptures. 

This  second  article  of  the  creed  of  Rome  pledges  its  mem- 
bers to  interpret  the  Holy  Scriptures  in  accordance  with  the 
teaching  of  that  Church,  and  only  according  to  the  unanimous 
interpretation  of  the  Fathers. 

This  article  thus  bears  on  its  face  the  fact  that  it  was  not 
composed  or  received  till  after  the  Fathers,  that  is,  till  after 
the  primitive  Church  had  passed  away  ;  and  it  goes  on  the  as- 
sumption that  the  Fathers  were  unanimous  in  such  interpreta- 
tion, whereas  there  is  no  fact  more  certain  than  that  upon  all 
those  portions  of  the  sacred  volume,  upon  Avhich  there  is  diver- 
sity of  interpretation  at  the  present  day,  there  was  as  great  and 
wide  a  diversity  among  the  Fathers  ;  so  that  if  the  members 
of  the  Church  of  Rome  are  bound  to  interpret  Scripture  only 
according  as  there  is  a  unanimous  interpretation  among  the 
Fathers,  they  will  be  necessitated  to  abandon  all  interpretation 
whatever,  inasmuch  as  there  is  no  unanimity  among  the 
Fathers.  The  celebrated  text,  "  Thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this 
rock  I  will  build  my  Church,  and  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not 
prevail  against  it,"  is  a  remarkable  illustration  of  this  :  for,  as 
the  Fathers  differed  among  themselves  as  to  the  true  purport 
of  these  words,  so  no  Romanist,  according  to  this  article  of  his 
creed,  has  any  right  to  give  to  these  words  any  interpretation  ; 
and  the  discourse  of  our  Lord  in  John  vi.  is  another  example, 
for  the  council  itself  has  placed  on  record  a  statement  that  the 
Fathers  were  divided  in  their  interpretation  of  it.  The  truth 
is,  that  the  Fathers  were  as  divided  as  ourselves,  and  there 
never  existed  among  them  any  unanimity  of  interpretation. 
•  This  article  was  invented  in  order  to  counteract  the  reading 
of  the  Scriptures,  now  getting  into  circulation  through  the 
discovery  of  printing,  and  in  order  to  counteract  the  use  which 
the  Protestants  made  of  the  sacred  volume.  It  never  was 
known  or  heard  of  in  the  Church  of  Christ  till  invented  at  the 
Council  of  Trent,  and  inserted  in  this  creed  in  1564. 


472  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

ni.  The  seven  sacraments. 

There  are  two  sacraments  received  among  reformed  Chris- 
tians. The  Church  of  Rome  holds  that  there  are  seven,  by 
adding  Confirmation,  Penance,  Orders,  Matrimony,  and  Ex- 
treme Unction. 

Confirmation  is  practically  a  useful  custom  among  us,  but 
has  not  the  essentials  of  a  sacrament.  Penance  was  a  custom 
adopted  among  the  heathen,  and  is  not  peculiar  to  Christians, 
and  certainly  has  not  the  nature  of  a  sacrament.  Repentance 
indeed,  is  a  Christian  grace,  but  not  a  sacrament.  Orders  is 
also  held  among  us,  but  it  has  not  the  essentials  of  a  sacra- 
ment. Matrimony  commenced  in  Eden,  and  can  not  be  a 
sacrament  of  the  gospel,  being  long  anterior  to  it.  Extreme 
Unction  is  an  abuse — a  superstitious  abuse  of  the  rite  of  anoint- 
ing the  sick,  originally  used  for  the  miraculous  healing  the 
sick  according  to  the  words,  "  they  anointed  with  oil  many 
that  were  sick  and  healed  themr  It  was  in  order  to  their 
miraculous  healing.  When  the  age  of  miracles  ceased,  this 
rite  should  also  have  ceased,  but  when  superstitious  persons 
saw  that  it  wrought  no  good  to  the  body,  they  sagely  con- 
cluded that  perhaps — possibly — may  be — it  did  some  un- 
known good  to  the  soul ;  and  thus  it  continues  in  the  Church 
of  Rome. 

By  means  of  these  five  pretended  sacraments,  added  to  tho 
two  real  sacraments  ordained  by  Christ,  the  Church  of  Rome 
has  completed  the  number  of  seven.  And  yet  that  number 
seems  unfortunate  as  being  of  all  the  most  calculated  to  ex- 
hibit the  novelty  of  the  article,  and  the  diversity  of  opinion 
alike.  Ambrose,  with  a  host  of  antiquity,  declares  that  there 
are  only  two  sacraments.  Isidore  avows  his  behef  in  only 
three^i  Alexander  declares  for  four^  an  author  named  Cyprian 
asserts  five  to  be  the  true  number,  of  which  one  is  the  washing 
of  the  feet  !  Durandus  declares  for  only  six,  rejecting  matri- 
mony as  not  a  sacrament,  and  Peter  Lombard  teaches  that  there 
are  seven. 

This  Peter  Lombard  was  the  first  who  ever  tauo^ht  that  there 
were  seven  sacraments ;  he  lived  in  the  twelfth  century.    It 


ATrriQUITY    OF   THE    CHtTRCH. 


478 


was  not  adopted,  however,  in  the  Church  of  Rome  for  three 
centuries  afterward.  This  took  place  at  the  Council  of  Florence 
in  1439,  from  which  it  was  adopted  by  the  Council  of  Trent 
and  inserted  in  this  creed. 

IV.  Sacramental  ceremonies. 

It  was  a  very  strange  idea  to  insert  a  clause  into  a  creed 
making  sacramental  ceremonies  an  article  of  faith.  It  was  the 
more  strange  as  the  ceremonies  are  confessedly  of  modern 
growth.  The  anointing  with  the  oil  of  the  chrism  in  Confirm- 
ation was  no  part  of  the  original  rite.  Confession  was 
originally  public,  and  it  was  not  till  the  fifth  century  that, 
owing  to  some  awkward  confession,  which  affected  the  riftral 
character  of  one  of  the  priests  then  officiating,  it  was  sup- 
pressed, lest  other  similar  confessions  should  lead  to  the  publi- 
cation of  similar  scandals.  Private  confession,  or  as  it  is 
called  Auricular  Confession,  was  then  introduced.  Private 
penances  were  never  used  till  the  seventh  century,  and  their 
commutation  for  alms  begun  only  in  the  ninth.  As  for  the 
ceremonies  connected  with  Orders,  they  were  altogether  un- 
known till  the  seventh  century  :  and  are  not  found  in  any 
ancient  ordinal.  The  ceremonies  connected  with  Matrimony 
need  not  be  noticed,  as  in  all  countries  they  are  variable. 
Those  which  accompany  Extreme  Unction  were  invented  in 
the  twelfth  century,  and  were  not  settled  till  the  fifteenth. 
Those  connected  with  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  are 
admitted  by  all  parties  to  be  many  of  them  novel.  As  long 
as  such  arrangements  are  not  unscriptural  they  may  well  b6 
borne  with,  but  it  seems  an  intolerable  thing  to  constitute 
them  an  Article  of  Faith.  This  was  neverdone  till  this  novel 
creed  was  compiled  in  1564. 

V.  Original  Sin  and  Justification. 

The  doctrines  of  the  Church  of  Rome  on  these  points  are 
not  liable  to  the  charge  of  novelty.  They  made  their  appear- 
ance at  the  beginning.  And  St.  Paul  wrote  his  Epistles  to 
the  Romans  and  to  the  Galatians  in  order  to  confute  and  sup- 
press them. 

These  doctrines  were  never  avowed  by  any  Council  or  any 


474  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    KOMANISTS. 

authority  till  the  Council  of  Trent.  Indeed  this  seems  ad- 
mitted ;  for  the  article  of  the  Creed  requires  the  belief,  not  of 
these  doctrines  as  revealed  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  but  only  as 
defined  by  the  Council  of  Trent.  At  least  the  creed  demands 
no  more  ancient  authority ;  and  certainly  they  were  never  em- 
bodied in  any  creed  till  1564. 

VI.  The  Mass  and  Transubstantiation. 

And  first,  for  the  Mass.  The  practice  of  private  masses, 
that  is,  masses  for  the  priest  alone,  without  a  congregation, 
was  unknown  for  many  centuries ;  and  when  it  was  first  in- 
troduced, it  was  condemned  by  the  Council  of  Metz  in  the 
ninth  century,  and  did  not  become  general  till  the  twelfth ; 
and  the  doctrine  that  the  Mass  was  a  true,  proper,  propitiatory 
sacrifice  for  sin,  was  jiever  adopted  by  any  Council  till  that  of 
Trent,  in  1545,  from  which  it  was  transferred  to  this  creed. 

And  then,  for  Transubstantiation.  The  first  book  ever 
written  in  which  the  word  "  Transubstantiation"  occurs,  was 
in  the  tenth  century  ;  and  a  certain  Bishop  of  Autun  has  had 
the  honor  of  the  invention.  This  is  admitted  by  our  oppo- 
nents ;  but  they  hold  that  the  doctrine  which  that  word  repre- 
sents was  of  earlier  origin.  And  this  is  true ;  but  it  is  appar- 
ent also,  that  the  first  book  ever  written  in  support  of  that 
doctrine,  was  that  written  by  Paschase  Radbert  in  831.  And 
this  is  admitted  by  all  the  ablest  writers  of  the  Church  of 
Rome ;  as  also  that  the  first  time  in  was  adopted  formally 
and  proclaimed  authoritatively  by  that  Chui'ch,  was  at  the 
Council  of  Lateran  in  1225. 

Vn.  Half-communion, 

The  practice  of  Half-communion,  or  communion  in  one 
kind,  in  the  bread  without  the  cup,  is  of  very  modern  origin ; 
some  notice  of  its  history  will  be  found  in  one  of  the  preced- 
ing conversations.  All  the  writers  of  the  Church  of  Rome 
acknowledge  that  it  was  not  received  before  the  twelfth  cen- 
tury. "  It  appears,"  says  Delahogue,  the  author  of  the  theo- 
logical class-book  of  the  Roman  Catholic  College  of  May- 
nooth  ;  "  that  from  the  days  of  the  Apostles  until  the  twelfth 
century,  the  custom  prevailed,  that  the  Eucharist  should  be 


ANTIQUITY    OF   THE    CHURCH.  475 

received  by  the  laity  in  both  kinds,  as  is  observed  in  the 
Greek  Church  at  the  present  day  ;  but  from  the  twelfth  cen- 
tury the  custom  of  distributing  the  Eucharist  to  the  faithful 
in  one  kind  only  was  gradually  confirmed." 

This  practice  thus  gradually  became  general,  though  with 
great  opposition  in  some  countries,  till  the  Council  of  Con- 
stance in  1414,  when,  for  the  first  time  in  the  history  of  the 
Church,  it  was  fomially  adopted. 

VIIT.  Purgatory,  Invocation  of  Saints,  and  Veneration  'A 
Relics. 

This  article  contains  three  particulars. 

First.  Purgatory. 

The  nature  and  character  of  the  doctrine  of  Purgatory  is 
stated  in  the  preceding  conversations.  Our  present  object  is 
its  origin ;  and  it  must  at  once  be  admitted  that  it  is  very 
ancient,  having  had  its  origin  in  the  opinions  of  the  heathens, 
who  preceded  the  introduction  of  Christianity ;  when,  there- 
fore, the  heathen  in  the  time  of  Constantino  made  a  formal 
profession  of  Christianity,  not  from  any  real  reception  of  its 
truth,  but  in  a  desire  to  please  the  imperial  court,  they  retained 
this  and  other  of  their  heathen  notions  of  religion.  The  intro- 
duction of  a  belief  in  Purgatory  in  the  Christian  Church  thus 
was  in  the  fourth  century ;  it  exhibited  itself  openly  in  the 
fifth,  and  seems  to  have  been  first  taught  publicly  by  Pope 
Gregory  L,  about  the  year  600.  Monks  and  Friars  soon 
found  it  an  ample  source  of  wealth,  and  therefore  naturally 
became  its  most  enthusiastic  promoters.  They  found  the 
gold  of  the  alchemist  in  the  fires  of  Purgatory  ! 

Fisher,  a  Bishop  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  states,  "  the  Latins 
did  not  receive  the  truth  of  this  matter  at  once,  but  by  little 
and  little  ;  nor  indeed  was  faith  in  either  Purgatory  or  Indulg- 
ence so  necessary  in  the  primitive  Church  as  at  present." 
This  simple  confession  shows  it  was  not  formally  received  at 
first.  Indeed  it  was  for  the  first  time  formally  pronounced  a 
doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Rome  at  the  Council  of  Florence  in 
1439. 

Secondly.  Invocation  of  Saints. 


476  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

The  original  of  this  practice  is  sho'wti  in  the  preceding  con- 
versations as  found  in  the  old  mythology  ;  and  as  such,  being 
only  a  baptized  heathenism,  regarded  and  denounced  as  such 
by  all  the  wise  and  good  of  the  primitive  Church.  It  is,  there- 
fore, clear  that  there  is  nothing  to  sanction  it  in  piimitive 
Christianity ;  and  this  is  admitted  by  the  learned  of  the 
Church  of  Rome.  The  Jesuit  Salmeron  confesses,  that  "  it 
would  have  been  a  hard  thing  to  impose  on  the  Jews.  And 
it  would  have  given  occasion  to  the  Gentiles  to  think  a  multi- 
tude of  gods  was  imposed  upon  them,  instead  of  the  multitude 
of  gods  which  they  had  forsaken."  And  Delahogue  says,  "  If 
many  monuments  of  the  invocation  of  saints  are  not  to  be 
found  in  the  first  and  second  centuries,  that  ought  not  to 
appear  strange,  for  as  persecutions  were  raging,  the  pastors  of 
the  Churches  were  more  anxious  to  instruct  and  prepare  the 
faithful  for  martyrdom  than  to  write  books."  And  thus  the 
fact  is  admitted,  however  they  labor  for  explanations,  that  this 
practice  formed  no  part  of  pure  and  primitive  Christianity. 

It  was  a  practice,  however,  that  was  introduced  by  the  con- 
verts from  heathenism,  and  so  became  very  general,  though 
never  authoritatively  sanctioned,  but  was  adopted  formally  for 
the  first  time  by  the  Council  of  Trent,  in  1545. 

Thirdly.  The  Veneration  of  Relics. 

The  impositions  connected  with  this  gross  superstition  have 
long  made  all  good  men  ashamed  of  it,  as  a  disgrace  and 
scandal  to  Christendom.  Its  origin  was  superstition ;  its 
support,  priestcraft ;  and  its  end,  avarice. 

IX.  Worship  of  Images. 

The  learned  Erasmus  states,  that  "  even  to  the  times  of  St. 
Jerome  those  who  were  of  the  true  religion  would  sufier  no 
image,  either  graven  or  painted,  in  the  Church  ;  no,  not  even 
the  picture  of  Christ ;"  and  Delahogue  admits  that  it  was  not 
allowed  for  three  hundred  years,  lest  it  should  look  like  the 
custom  of  the  heathens,  and  seem  to  give  a  sanction  to  their 
images.  This  admission  is  sufficient  to  prove  it  was  no  part 
of  pure  and  primitive  Christianity.  Cornelius  Agrippa, 
another  of  their  authors,  honestly  states — "  The  false  religion 


ANTIQUITY   OF   THE    CHURCH.  477 

of  the  heathen  has  infected  our  rehgiou,  and  brought  images 
and  pictui-es  into  the  Church,  with  many  ceremonies  of  ex- 
ternal pomp,  none  of  which  were  found  among  the  first  and 
true  Christians." 

Unhappily,  in  order  to  multiply  the  number  of  professed 
converts,  the  heathen  were  allowed  to  retain  their  ancient 
images.  In  many  instances  images  of  the  heathen  gods  were 
baptized  by  the  names  of  Christian  saints,  and  were  thus 
adopted  into  the  Church.  To  restrain  this  evil,  the  Council  at 
Constantinople,  at  which  there  were  338  bishops,  condemned 
the  use  of  images  in  the  year  754,  and  ordered  them  to  be  re- 
moved from  the  churches ;  but  shortly  afterward,  under  the 
unholy  influence  of  Irene,  the  practice  was  formally  sanctioned 
and  adopted  at  the  Council  that  met  at  Nice,  and  at  which 
350  bishops  were  assembled,  in  the  year  786.  This  was  after- 
ward condemned  at  the  Council  of  Frankfort  in  790,  by  300 
bishops.  It  was  finally  adopted  by  the  Church  of  Rome,  at 
the  Council  of  Trent,  in  1545. 

X.  Indulgences. 

All  the  writers  of  the  Church  of  Rome  acknowledge  in- 
dulgences as  a  modern  invention,  that  is,  that  they  were  un- 
known in  the  primitive  Church,  and  had  their  origin  about  the 
twelfth  century. 

Cardinal  Cajetan  states,  "  If  there  could  be  certainty  arrived 
at  about  the  commencement  of  indulgences,  it  would  avail  us 
much  in  finding  the  truth,  but  there  is  no  authority  of  Scrip- 
ture or  ancient  fethers,  either  Greek  or  Latin,  that  gives  us 
any  knowledge  of  them.  And  Alphonsus  a  Castro  acknowl- 
edges, "  There  is  nothing  in  Scripture  less  opened,  and  about 
which  the  ancient  fathers  have  written  less,  than  about  indulg- 
ences, and  it  seems  that  the  use  of  them  came  but  lately  into  the 
Church."  These  admissions  seem  sufficient  to  prove  the  nov- 
elty of  this  article  of  the  creed  of  Rome.  Indeed,  though  very 
general  in  that  Church  from  the  twelfth  century,  and  although 
they  led  to  the  first  outbreak  of  the  Reformation,  yet  they 
never  were  defined  and  sanctioned  by  any  council  till  that  of 
Trent  in  1545.     They  were  long  before  employed  by  the 


478  EVENINGS    WITH    THE    ROMANISTS. 

popes  for  purposes  of  a  financial  nature,  but  they  were  never 
adopted  formally  and  authoritatively  by  the  Church  of  Rome 
till  that  council. 

XI.  The  supremacy  of  the  Church  of  Rome. 

That  this  clause  of  the  creed  involves  a  positive  untruth  as 
a  matter  of  historical  fact,  has  been  already  shown  in  the  con- 
versation on  the  pretended  supremacy  of  the  Church  of  Rome. 

That  the  Bishops  of  Rome  should  have  been  regarded  as 
more  than  ordinary  bishops  is  not  improbable,  considering 
that  Rome  was  the  capital  city  of  the  Western  Empire,  as 
were  the  Bishops  of  Constantinople,  on  account  of  its  being  the 
capital  of  the  Eastern  Empire.  But  as  to  either  of  them  pos- 
sessing authority  or  supremacy  over  the  other  bishops  of 
Christendom,  the  thing  never  was  thought  of  till  the  close  of 
the  sixth  century,  and  then  the.  claim  was  advanced,  not  by 
the  Bishop  of  Rome,  but  by  the  Bishop  of  Constantinople  !  It 
was  he  who  first  claimed  this  supremacy,  and  so  little  was  the 
rest  of  Christendom  prepared  for  it — so  little  were  the  bishops 
of  Rome  prepared  for  such  a  claim  on  the  part  of  any  bishop 
in  the  world,  that  Gregory  L,  the  then  Bishop  of  Rome,  de- 
clared the  assumption  of  such  a  claim  was  a  mark  of  the  An- 
tichrist !     He  says  in  one  of  his  letters — 

"  Saint  Peter  was  not  called  a  Universal  Apostle,  and  yet, 
lo !  my  fellow-priest  John  seeks  to  be  called  the  Universal 
Bishop  !  O  tempora,  O  mores !  Europe  is  now  exposed  a 
prey  to  the  barbarians,  and  yet  the  priests,  who  should  lay 
themselves  in  the  dust,  and  weep  and  roll  themselves  in  ashes, 
are  seeking  in  a  spirit  of  vanity,  and  boasting  themselves  in 
new-found  and  profane  titles."  And  in  another  epistle  he 
says,  "  I  have  advertised  him  of  that  haughty  and  superstitious 
title  of  Universal  Bishop,  and  that  unless  he  reform  it,  he  can 
have  no  place  with  us,  for  if  there  be  any  bishop  so  called,  then 
must  the  universal  Church  fall  to  the  ground,  if  he  who  is  the 
universal  bishop  fall  into  error ;  may  such  folly  never  befall 
us !"  And  again,  "  I  speak  boldly,  whoever  calls  himself,  or 
desires  to  be  called  by  others.  Universal  Bishop  or  priest,  is 
the  forerunner   of  Antichrists     Such  was  the  language  of 


ANTIQUITY    OP   THE    CHURCH.  479 

Gregory  the  Great,  who  was  at  that  time  the  Bishop  of  Rome. 
He  Uttle  thought  of  the  claims  of  his  successors. 

When,  however,  Phocas  murdered  the  Emperor,  the  next 
Bishop  of  Rome  claimed  this  very  title  of  Universal  Bishop, 
and  Phocas  applied  all  his  imperial  power  to  enforce  the 
claim. 

XII.  The  Council  of  Trent. 

This  clause  of  the  Creed  refers  to  the  Canons  of  Trent,  and 
is  for  that  very  reason  an  essentially  novel  article  of  faith.  It 
could  not  have  had  existence  before  the  close  of  that  Council, 
and  indeed,  first  found  its  place  in  the  Creed  of  1564. 

Such  are  the  twelve  new  articles  of  Faith — the  articles 
which  are  to  be  found  in  no  one  ancient  creed  of  any  one  of 
the  Churches  of  Christ — the  articles  which  are  the  distinctive 
peculiarity  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  the  essence  of  her  re- 
ligion— the  twelve  new  Articles  of  Faith,  which  have  been 
added  to  the  ancient  Nicene  Creed,  and  form  now  the  Creed 
of  the  Church  of  Rome.  It  was  a  Creed  compiled  many 
years  after  Luther  was  laid  in  his  grave,  after  Henry  VIH., 
was  gathered  to  his  fathers,  and  thus  was  by  many  years  more 
novel  and  modem  than  the  Reformation  1 


THE    END. 


* '»' »    1«     ,     ,      ,  > 


•  •    • 

•  «  • 


This  book  is  dne  two  weeks  from  the  last  date  stamped 
below,  and  if  not  returned  at  or  before  that  time  a  fine  of 
five  cents  a  day  will  be  incurred. 


""Iimilllfl^'^'^"^'^^  LIBRARIES    "" 

0315023761 


Se  9 

bevmovir 


BRITTLE  DO  HOI 
PHOTOCOPY/  .: 


I  io  iadb 


